BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: luckybit on November 26, 2015, 04:42:40 am
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLzwYthfcVc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tapscott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
How will the semantic web and blockchain change the concept of the firm, the corporation, business, and allow us to achieve prosperity?
-
I am about to watch the video, but from my reading of the wiki I am highly skeptical of the practicality of the "Semantic Web". Besides the need to prove the facts asserted, some "certification authority" needs to verify the claims made, a problem in itself. An interesting experiment would be to see if the wikipedia database could be processed to produce a semantic web representation. It may also be impractical for the reasons stated in the wiki:
While learning the basics of HTML is relatively straightforward, learning a knowledge representation language or tool requires the author to learn about the representation's methods of abstraction and their effect on reasoning. For example, understanding the class-instance relationship, or the superclass-subclass relationship, is more than understanding that one concept is a “type of” another concept. […] These abstractions are taught to computer scientists generally and knowledge engineers specifically but do not match the similar natural language meaning of being a "type of" something. Effective use of such a formal representation requires the author to become a skilled knowledge engineer in addition to any other skills required by the domain. […] Once one has learned a formal representation language, it is still often much more effort to express ideas in that representation than in a less formal representation […]. Indeed, this is a form of programming based on the declaration of semantic data and requires an understanding of how reasoning algorithms will interpret the authored structures.
I liked what Tapscott had to say in the video. He didn't mention the semantic web by name, nor talk about it directly. You could argue he did in concept but IMO even that's a bit of a stretch.
After reading his bio on wikipedia I was keeping my eye open for signs of "globalist" leanings, but the video conveyed an entirely opposite attitude.
However, I tend to judge such things from a perspective of looking at a long history of actions and statements, so although I really like what the guy said in this video I don't have much to assess his motives. It's more a matter of what I'm aware of than what he has done or said though. Bottom line is he leaves me with the impression he believes in empowering the individual, not the collectivist thinking so dominant in many movers and shakers of this world.
Thanks for sharing this info luckybit. As always you post some interesting material worth looking at.
-
I am about to watch the video, but from my reading of the wiki I am highly skeptical of the practicality of the "Semantic Web". Besides the need to prove the facts asserted, some "certification authority" needs to verify the claims made, a problem in itself. An interesting experiment would be to see if the wikipedia database could be processed to produce a semantic web representation. It may also be impractical for the reasons stated in the wiki:
While learning the basics of HTML is relatively straightforward, learning a knowledge representation language or tool requires the author to learn about the representation's methods of abstraction and their effect on reasoning. For example, understanding the class-instance relationship, or the superclass-subclass relationship, is more than understanding that one concept is a “type of” another concept. […] These abstractions are taught to computer scientists generally and knowledge engineers specifically but do not match the similar natural language meaning of being a "type of" something. Effective use of such a formal representation requires the author to become a skilled knowledge engineer in addition to any other skills required by the domain. […] Once one has learned a formal representation language, it is still often much more effort to express ideas in that representation than in a less formal representation […]. Indeed, this is a form of programming based on the declaration of semantic data and requires an understanding of how reasoning algorithms will interpret the authored structures.
You're not considering the potential of a semantic web, with value transfer, with blockchains. It's literally going to change life as we know it when we combine these aspects.
A semantic web is capable of evolving into a smart web. Smart in the sense that it can take advantage of machine intelligence. Then you have stuff like dbPedia, the Internet of Things, the Blockchain, and you can build distributed computing into the semantic web.
At this time it might sound alien or not make sense, but you wait and see if I was right. The semantic blockchain web is what I'm predicting.
-
You failed to address the central points of my skepticism, which are extremely important. The quote dealt with practicalities but I raised the issue of who decides what is true.
Any Tom Dick or Harry could put up a semantic website with disinformation, so how is a machine to decide if it is accurate or not? THAT is the key concern I have. Perhaps through AI / neural net intelligence coupled with big data a statistical guess can decide reasonably accurately what is true or correct. Tapscott rightly says big data is not the way to go, it is counterproductive to a free society b/c it violates privacy, an essential ingredient for a free society.
-
You failed to address the central points of my skepticism, which are extremely important. The quote dealt with practicalities but I raised the issue of who decides what is true.
Any Tom Dick or Harry could put up a semantic website with disinformation, so how is a machine to decide if it is accurate or not? THAT is the key concern I have.
The blockchain logs the truth. There wasn't a blockchain before so you had no way to log what is true. A blockchain is a way to have a unified source of truth.
Perhaps through AI / neural net intelligence coupled with big data a statistical guess can decide reasonably accurately what is true or correct.
Computers already use algorithms to decide true and false. Anything a computer cannot deal with, a human could be paid to deal with. Once it's confirmed true either by human, computer, or a combination of both, then it's on the blockchain.
For example prediction markets allow humans to determine true and false. Oracles are the mechanism you'd want to look into, and distributed oracles are basically how Bitshares currently determines things like the price of Bitcoin. How do we know the price in the price feed is the true price? The fact that multiple oracles all agree that it's true, the fact that the humans agree it's true.
The same would work for a sporting event. Is it true or false that a certain team won a game? A prediction market would let humans try to predict which team won, but then you'd have humans who would report the result with their reputations on the line. Those humans of course would get paid to report correct results, they are the oracles of truth.
Tapscott rightly says big data is not the way to go, it is counterproductive to a free society b/c it violates privacy, an essential ingredient for a free society.
Big data is the way to go. It doesn't violate privacy when it's decentralized and private. For example Enigma the MIT project may in fact be able to do big data on the blockchain, without violating anyone's privacy. You can also do big data to private information in other ways, possibly through homomorphic encryption for instance. It is a myth that big data is counterproductive to a free society.
What matters for a free society is access control. Privacy is access control. You probably don't care if AI or algorithms can access your data and compute it, as long as no human beings can access it. So as long as the results of that computation are under your control, then you don't really lose anything but you do gain the ability to do serious analytics on your own data. Finally you could use different methods like homomorphic encryption or the Enigma method to do analysis of everyone's data without any way to determine the identities of the individuals or see the data.
My own opinion is, I'm absolutely and unequivacally in favor of big data. I do not believe you must sacrifice privacy to achieve security when you can find ways to increase both in the same solution. I do not believe you must lose privacy to analyze data and fully homomorphic encryption shows that you do not need to, as well the method of just using the blockchain to anonymize and chunk the data so that it's computed across many non-colluding computers all over the world. The ability to bring big data analysis to the masses is the holy grail, allowing for all kinds of powerful machine learning and apps.
http://enigma.media.mit.edu/
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/09/a-darpa-director-on-fully-homomorphic-encryption-or-one-way-the-u-s-could-collect-data/
-
On this topic...
Enigma’s computational model is based on a highly optimized version of secure multi-party computation, guaranteed by a verifiable secret-sharing scheme. For storage, we use a modi-fied distributed hashtable for holding secret-shared data. An external blockchainis utilized as the controller of the network, manages access control, identities and serves as a tamper-proof log of events. Security deposits and fees incentivize operation, correctness and fairness of the system. Similar to Bitcoin, Enigma removes the need for a trusted third party, enabling autonomous control of personal data.
For the first time, users are able to share their data with cryptographic guarantees
regarding their privacy.
@bytemaster It might be a good idea to add the same functionality that Bitcoin will have (Enigma) to Bitshares. The ability to do big data analytics is extremely powerful when combined with privacy. Suddenly people could sell their data to be computed and used by algorithms without any loss of privacy, and they could be in complete control of which algorithms could access it, or possibly even revoke access.
Of course this would require Bitshares have either the ability to compute data or that would have to be outsourced via UIA, but if we had these abilities it could help both users and developers know how to improve Bitshares, or to be used for FollowMyVote (most of politics is about knowing the voter and how they think).
-
You failed to address the central points of my skepticism, which are extremely important. The quote dealt with practicalities but I raised the issue of who decides what is true.
Any Tom Dick or Harry could put up a semantic website with disinformation, so how is a machine to decide if it is accurate or not? THAT is the key concern I have.
The blockchain logs the truth. There wasn't a blockchain before so you had no way to log what is true. A blockchain is a way to have a unified source of truth.
Perhaps through AI / neural net intelligence coupled with big data a statistical guess can decide reasonably accurately what is true or correct.
Computers already use algorithms to decide true and false. Anything a computer cannot deal with, a human could be paid to deal with. Once it's confirmed true either by human, computer, or a combination of both, then it's on the blockchain.
Truth is absolute, not a matter of consensus. It's about provable facts. Going back to the wikipedia example, how can the assertions submitted as fact / truth be verified or proven?
On the other hand your price feed example is about consensus. In that case (and others you pointed out) truth is effectively equal to consensus. That isn't always the case however.
How do you establish the dividing line between factual, objective, provable truth and effective, practical truth by consensus?
Regarding the use of big data, I agree that access control is key to secure privacy. I also agree that with cryptography it would be possible to mine big data from a blockchain database leaving privacy intact.
It's definitely worth considering as a future feature / work proposal.
-
Below are my opinions on the nature of reality...
Reality isn't absolute. There is fuzzy logic. Meaning the numbers between 1 and 0, true and false, or the percentage something is true or false.
Our reality is made up of consensus. A scientifically recognized fact is only a fact because of scientific consensus. A computer can and does use logic to determine true or false, and that logic is the closest we can get to proving anything in life, as it's accuracy is more accurate than any other tool we have.
So you can prove something is logically true. 1+1=2 is logically true. When you're dealing with something which cannot be proven in that way, like what happened during an event, now you've got many perspectives who have to report in and you deal with a percentage of true and false. The true outweighing the false makes truth in that case which means consensus.
A computer can prove theorems, it can do math, it can do logic and reasoning, and depending on the strength of AI it can use it's abilities to find facts. This doesn't mean a computer at this time can reveal the nature of reality, or tell you what happened at a sporting event. It could give you probabilities about which team should or could have won, but ultimately only the oracles can tell you who won.
You can have an AI or something similar watching the game through people's cellphones, it might be able to determine who won, but at this time prediction markets with blockchains are the closest human beings can get to determining truth. Truth isn't absolute in any case, there are always percentages, even with logic, even with reality, and it's only true or false because of logic, and computers happen to be good at logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving
-
I must respectfully disagree. Not every event can be known in absolute terms, but some can.
Did team A or B win? That is a fact which can be determined absolutely, based on the objective rules of the game, not "oracles". Did Albert Einstein die or is he still alive? That too is a fact with absolute certainty. Science is NOT based on consensus. Scientists rely on consensus in some cases, and when they do it's an approximation, it's theory or hypothesis, not definitive as in repeatable with the same known conditions.
Although math is concrete, its application and how it correlates to reality is open to interpretation.
I've been thinking a lot lately about consciousness. Ultimately each of us interprets our sense data and in that way our view of reality is never objective. However, we conceive of an absolute, objective reality and without that our communication would be impossible and our ability to survive, to learn and adapt to our environment would be fatally impaired. Humanity operates within a shared context, and I guess you could call that a consensus of the interpretation of our senses.
BM has said he believes in the philosophical view known as solipsism, yet he interacts with me, you and everyone as though we are independent and separate entities. So I must question whether he truly does believe in solipsism. Actions follow belief. Thought first, then action, cause and effect.
It's an interesting topic to ponder. Perhaps all that exists is consciousness, and everything is just a manifestation of that. As much as that idea may point to reality not having absolutes, the one absolute that is inherent in that perspective is that consciousness exists. I don't see how that can be denied without using consciousness.
I found this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE#t=3135) to be one of the best explorations I've heard on the topic of consciousness, with minimal metaphysical overtones. Obviously the topic itself is metaphysical, there is no escaping that. What I mean is this video avoids the typical new age and religious conjectures I usually find with this topic.
-
Below are my opinions on the nature of reality...
Reality isn't absolute. There is fuzzy logic. Meaning the numbers between 1 and 0, true and false, or the percentage something is true or false.
Reality is absolute, our understanding or perception of reality is not.
Luckybit is that what you meant?
Our reality is made up of consensus. A scientifically recognized fact is only a fact because of scientific consensus. A computer can and does use logic to determine true or false, and that logic is the closest we can get to proving anything in life, as it's accuracy is more accurate than any other tool we have.
Some things we might conclude through consensus. Much of it we arrive through deductive logic, and that is what computers are good at. "Scientific consensus" or inductive logic is collecting data and then is analysed to draw a probable conclusion, the more data or information we have the higher the probability.
Deductive logic gives us certainty. Inductive logic gives us probability. Computers are excellent at deductive logic, but are limited by the information they have in applying inductive logic (the scientific method), I think that we humans, at least until now, are better at this method than computers are.
So you can prove something is logically true. 1+1=2 is logically true. When you're dealing with something which cannot be proven in that way, like what happened during an event, now you've got many perspectives who have to report in and you deal with a percentage of true and false. The true outweighing the false makes truth in that case which means consensus.
I don't know if we can necessarily call this consensus, for consensus implies that we take a vote to see what people think is true. In the case of an event, even if there was no one there to see what happened we can still determine more less what happened by collecting data (forensics), we might gather fingerprints, hidden camera recordings, etc. such as in a murder case.
A computer can prove theorems, it can do math, it can do logic and reasoning, and depending on the strength of AI it can use it's abilities to find facts. This doesn't mean a computer at this time can reveal the nature of reality, or tell you what happened at a sporting event. It could give you probabilities about which team should or could have won, but ultimately only the oracles can tell you who won.
Only if the oracles are using one of the two methods, or by merely guessing. I don't believe anyone has a monopoly on truth.
You can have an AI or something similar watching the game through people's cellphones, it might be able to determine who won, but at this time prediction markets with blockchains are the closest human beings can get to determining truth. Truth isn't absolute in any case, there are always percentages, even with logic, even with reality, and it's only true or false because of logic, and computers happen to be good at logic.
Truth is absolute, our perception of truth i not. The world is the way it is, regardless of how we understand it.
The statement "truth isn't absolute" is making an absolute statement of truth, which makes it a self-defeating statement.
Here are my favorite self-defeating statements:
I will now predict an unanticipated result.
If your father was sterile, the same is probably true of you.
To distinguish the real from the unreal one must experience both. :P
-
Reality is absolute, our understanding or perception of reality is not.
Luckybit is that what you meant?
Reality is not absolute. Reality is a matter of probabilities. Nothing is absolute.
We aren't absolutely certain about whether this universe is the real one or some virtualized simulation running on a multiverse computer. We don't know if the universe is a hologram or not.
We don't know if the universe is "real" or not because our only means of determining what is or isn't real is very limited. We basically use math and logic to try to determine what is or isn't real, and ultimately the only reason something is real is because the probability of it being fake is statistically not likely. The concept of real and fake, and trying to determine what is real in the absolutely sense of the word, is something which you cannot prove.
You ultimately end up relying on perceptions, on mathematics, on logic, but you don't have the kind of certainty that is absolute.
Truth is absolute, our perception of truth i not. The world is the way it is, regardless of how we understand it.
What way is that, and what are we? You have to know yourself before you can even answer the kind of questions you're trying to ask, and honestly the quality of your answer depends on the quality and structure of your question. If the universe is a computer, then it can compute, and we can compute along with it, but it doesn't tell you why, it doesn't give you any absolute truth, there is no absolute truth so far that we have beyond the mathematics which are notoriously uncertain.
I'm no mathematician but I know enough about quantum physics to know there is no absolute truth on the quantum scale. What is absolute reality?
The statement "truth isn't absolute" is making an absolute statement of truth, which makes it a self-defeating statement.
Reality are just probabilities. That is all reality is on the quantum scale. So when someone says they know there is an absolute truth, how can you know that when on the quantum scale it looks like the universe hasn't decided on that?
From what I know if a decision is made, it happens at the collapse of a wave function, if you would even want to think about it as the universe making a decision to solidify reality. When I say we don't have certainty I mean based on our current understanding we don't. When I say we don't have an absolute truth I'm basing it on my philosophical interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aowYf44gDRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
-
Another theory to explain the slit experiment's results which also fit the data exists, but hasn't been given much attention. The slit experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) is the foundation of quantum theory. However IMO this makes more sense than quantum theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NogyJ0k8Kw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NogyJ0k8Kw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI6ikj1G-s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI6ikj1G-s)
These videos show actual experimental apparatus and interactions with it in real time, allowing you to visualize what is actually going on. I was floored when I discovered them. The reason this gets such little attention is b/c the erosion of science into uncertainty plays into the globalist agenda for manipulation of humanity.
Don't get me wrong and assume that I'm saying there is no value in the theory of quantum mechanics. GPS satellite synchronization is based on it. However, it is just a theory that fits well enough to be useful, as are so many others such as gravity. But as we learn more and gather additional data we come to realize the limits of these theories and see their inaccuracies, at which point they are revised or a new ones are born to encompass the new data.
-
Reality is absolute, our understanding or perception of reality is not.
Luckybit is that what you meant?
Reality is not absolute. Reality is a matter of probabilities. Nothing is absolute.
Are you absolutely sure that nothing is absolute?
We aren't absolutely certain about whether this universe is the real one or some virtualized simulation running on a multiverse computer. We don't know if the universe is a hologram or not.
We don't know if the universe is "real" or not because our only means of determining what is or isn't real is very limited. We basically use math and logic to try to determine what is or isn't real, and ultimately the only reason something is real is because the probability of it being fake is statistically not likely. The concept of real and fake, and trying to determine what is real in the absolutely sense of the word, is something which you cannot prove.
You ultimately end up relying on perceptions, on mathematics, on logic, but you don't have the kind of certainty that is absolute.
What you have said above is reliant on perceptions, mathematics, and logic. I suppose you believe that to be absolutely true. Or do you not?
Truth is absolute, our perception of truth i not. The world is the way it is, regardless of how we understand it.
What way is that, and what are we? You have to know yourself before you can even answer the kind of questions you're trying to ask, and honestly the quality of your answer depends on the quality and structure of your question. If the universe is a computer, then it can compute, and we can compute along with it, but it doesn't tell you why, it doesn't give you any absolute truth, there is no absolute truth so far that we have beyond the mathematics which are notoriously uncertain.
I'm no mathematician but I know enough about quantum physics to know there is no absolute truth on the quantum scale. What is absolute reality?
You see Luckybit, you are making several assertions and you are hoping that those who read them will agree with you, but at the same time you are saying that nothing is absolute (which I am guessing you are including your own assertions). If what you are arguing for is not absolute, at least in your mind, then why should we even listen to what you have to say?
I don't believe everything you say is wrong, for I've read many of your posts and you make a lot of sense. But when you say that there is no absolute truth then that strikes a wrong chord with logic.
Logic is undeniable, for anyone who tries to refute it must first use it and thereby is affirming it. It's like saying "I can't speak a word in English." What's wrong with that sentence? Obviously, in making that statement, the statement itself has been negated, because the speaker had to speak English in order to communicate the idea that he or she couldn't speak English. It is a self-refuting affirmation. "I don't exist" is another example, for one has to exist in order to make the statement.
The statement "truth isn't absolute" is making an absolute statement of truth, which makes it a self-defeating statement.
Reality are just probabilities. That is all reality is on the quantum scale.
You see you are making two absolute affirmations here, "just" = just that, nothing else, and "that is all reality is" = "it can't be anything else".
Please think about this. Your post contains several absolutes and yet you negate that there are absolutes. Your are engaging in double talk or contradiction.
So when someone says they know there is an absolute truth, how can you know that when on the quantum scale it looks like the universe hasn't decided on that? From what I know if a decision is made, it happens at the collapse of a wave function, if you would even want to think about it as the universe making a decision to solidify reality.
I am sorry I don't understand what you are saying here.
When I say we don't have certainty I mean based on our current understanding we don't. When I say we don't have an absolute truth I'm basing it on my philosophical interpretation.
There are many things we can be certain about, there are also many things we are not certain about. For example, we are certain that 2+2=4, and all mathematics and deductive logic give us certainty. But when we delve in the realm of science, for instance, I agree with you that "we don't have certainty ... based on our current understanding".
-
Reality is absolute, our understanding or perception of reality is not.
Luckybit is that what you meant?
Reality is not absolute. Reality is a matter of probabilities. Nothing is absolute.
Are you absolutely sure that nothing is absolute?
We aren't absolutely certain about whether this universe is the real one or some virtualized simulation running on a multiverse computer. We don't know if the universe is a hologram or not.
We don't know if the universe is "real" or not because our only means of determining what is or isn't real is very limited. We basically use math and logic to try to determine what is or isn't real, and ultimately the only reason something is real is because the probability of it being fake is statistically not likely. The concept of real and fake, and trying to determine what is real in the absolutely sense of the word, is something which you cannot prove.
You ultimately end up relying on perceptions, on mathematics, on logic, but you don't have the kind of certainty that is absolute.
What you have said above is reliant on perceptions, mathematics, and logic. I suppose you believe that to be absolutely true. Or do you not?
Truth is absolute, our perception of truth i not. The world is the way it is, regardless of how we understand it.
What way is that, and what are we? You have to know yourself before you can even answer the kind of questions you're trying to ask, and honestly the quality of your answer depends on the quality and structure of your question. If the universe is a computer, then it can compute, and we can compute along with it, but it doesn't tell you why, it doesn't give you any absolute truth, there is no absolute truth so far that we have beyond the mathematics which are notoriously uncertain.
I'm no mathematician but I know enough about quantum physics to know there is no absolute truth on the quantum scale. What is absolute reality?
You see Luckybit, you are making several assertions and you are hoping that those who read them will agree with you, but at the same time you are saying that nothing is absolute (which I am guessing you are including your own assertions). If what you are arguing for is not absolute, at least in your mind, then why should we even listen to what you have to say?
I don't believe everything you say is wrong, for I've read many of your posts and you make a lot of sense. But when you say that there is no absolute truth then that strikes a wrong chord with logic.
Logic is undeniable, for anyone who tries to refute it must first use it and thereby is affirming it. It's like saying "I can't speak a word in English." What's wrong with that sentence? Obviously, in making that statement, the statement itself has been negated, because the speaker had to speak English in order to communicate the idea that he or she couldn't speak English. It is a self-refuting affirmation. "I don't exist" is another example, for one has to exist in order to make the statement.
The statement "truth isn't absolute" is making an absolute statement of truth, which makes it a self-defeating statement.
Reality are just probabilities. That is all reality is on the quantum scale.
You see you are making two absolute affirmations here, "just" = just that, nothing else, and "that is all reality is" = "it can't be anything else".
Please think about this. Your post contains several absolutes and yet you negate that there are absolutes. Your are engaging in double talk or contradiction.
So when someone says they know there is an absolute truth, how can you know that when on the quantum scale it looks like the universe hasn't decided on that? From what I know if a decision is made, it happens at the collapse of a wave function, if you would even want to think about it as the universe making a decision to solidify reality.
I am sorry I don't understand what you are saying here.
When I say we don't have certainty I mean based on our current understanding we don't. When I say we don't have an absolute truth I'm basing it on my philosophical interpretation.
There are many things we can be certain about, there are also many things we are not certain about. For example, we are certain that 2+2=4, and all mathematics and deductive logic give us certainty. But when we delve in the realm of science, for instance, I agree with you that "we don't have certainty ... based on our current understanding".
We can't be absolutely certain about anything. I suppose if you want to be absolutely certain about something you can be certain that you exist, but you can't really be absolutely certain about anything else (solipsism). Trying to rely on absolute certainty you will quickly find isn't very practical, because even the laws of physics itself have probabilities, our entire universe out of the multiverse exists as a phase space on a mobius strip. If you're familiar with the work of Mag Tegmark then I suggest you look up his work, and you can see that in mathematics you can use logic to prove things which you can't observe, you can show for example that it's not feasible for our universe to exist unless it's part of a multiverse due to the probabilities, and numbers like the cosmological constant.
Then you have fractals, and all sorts of theories involving an infinite multiverse, or is it finite? In either case we don't have the answers. And there are other problems too such as how with black holes classical physics break and no one knows why, you end up dealing with infinities again. So to say logic and mathematics is absolute, it's only a language and it doesn't do anything but try to define reality.
Jürgen Schmidhuber[8] argues that “Although Tegmark suggests that ‘... all mathematical structures are a priori given equal statistical weight,’ there is no way of assigning equal nonvanishing probability to all (infinitely many) mathematical structures.” Schmidhuber puts forward a more restricted ensemble which admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[9]
In response, Tegmark notes[3] (sec. V.E) that the measure over all universes has not yet been constructed for the String theory landscape either, so this should not be regarded as a "show-stopper".
Tegmark's response in [10] (sec VI.A.1) is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
So you cannot be certain whether or not the universe is real. Logic makes sense in the context of a very deterministic and finite universe. In an infinite universe you don't have the same powers of logic. From our current understanding the universe is finite, and all energy is finite, so it's all finite, so logic can work and you can compute stuff.
But that doesn't mean this universe is the only universe, or that everything can be computed. It just means you can compute everything on a finite computer using the logic of that finite computer.
As far as semantics, I might use language which sounds certain, but the fact is the experiments and sources I cite who are experts in knowing how to phrase their sentences on these topics, are aware that there isn't the kind of certainty to reality. Sure, in a finite computer following certain rules, all derived from logic, all predetermined, then yes you can have a level of certainty because it's all deterministic, decidable, and you can prove stuff.
But when you're dealing with infinite, or with problems which aren't as bounded, and you don't have an infinite amount of time to compute it, now you run into problems. It's going to be very difficult to prove for example whether or not our universe is a simulation, or whether we are in a multiverse or not, but if either of these turn out to be true then all of our certainty would only apply to our own little phase space in our deterministic universe.
More resources:
http://www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Homotopy-Type-Theory_Univalent-Foundations-of-Mathematics.pdf
Simulation hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M
Counter to the simulation hypothesis by Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYx30T9mHLo
Ted talk on simulation hypothesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow
Original simulation argument by Nick Bostrom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
-
Luckybit, is it because you don't think that I exist you are not answering my questions? Le me try again.
You keep affirming:
We can't be absolutely certain about anything.
I keep asking:
Are you absolutely certain about that?
Please answer.
-
Luckybit, is it because you don't think that I exist you are not answering my questions? Le me try again.
You keep affirming:
We can't be absolutely certain about anything.
I keep asking:
Are you absolutely certain about that?
Please answer.
No I'm not certain about that or about anything. There is a chance that I could be wrong so it's not absolute certainty. If the chance however that I could be wrong is infinitesimal and all evidence points against it, I will follow the evidence, logic, laws of physics, I just do not assume that we are capable of having absolute certainty.
I don't think we have correctly reached a level where we know absolute truth. It's possible we might never know absolute truth. The thread isn't about me, its' about whether or not there is an absolute truth. I don't think truth is absolute, I think we reach a scientific consensus and agree that something is true, or we look at the math, such as with the Drake equation and similar, and say that with all the planets in the universe it's almost a certainty that there are aliens in space, but that doesn't mean it's absolutely certain.
So I can agree with most people that there is a high probability of aliens in space or that 2+2=4 always, but there are facts in the universe which defy probability, like the cosmological constant and other mysteries, which lead me to be uncertain about the nature of reality itself, and because of that I cannot be absolutely certain about any statement, and would only say it's a fact based on our current understanding of reality (which is limited).
-
Luckybit, is it because you don't think that I exist you are not answering my questions? Le me try again.
You keep affirming:
We can't be absolutely certain about anything.
I keep asking:
Are you absolutely certain about that?
Please answer.
No I'm not certain about that or about anything. There is a chance that I could be wrong so it's not absolute certainty. If the chance however that I could be wrong is infinitesimal and all evidence points against it, I will follow the evidence, logic, laws of physics, I just do not assume that we are capable of having absolute certainty.
I don't think we have correctly reached a level where we know absolute truth. It's possible we might never know absolute truth. The thread isn't about me, its' about whether or not there is an absolute truth. I don't think truth is absolute, I think we reach a scientific consensus and agree that something is true, or we look at the math, such as with the Drake equation and similar, and say that with all the planets in the universe it's almost a certainty that there are aliens in space, but that doesn't mean it's absolutely certain.
So I can agree with most people that there is a high probability of aliens in space or that 2+2=4 always, but there are facts in the universe which defy probability, like the cosmological constant and other mysteries, which lead me to be uncertain about the nature of reality itself, and because of that I cannot be absolutely certain about any statement, and would only say it's a fact based on our current understanding of reality (which is limited).
Speaking of the continuum between absolute certainty and no absolute truth, I do share some of your reservations luckybit. However unlike you I stop short of saying NOTHING can be known for certain. That is a self-detonating statement as Louis points out. And as I pointed out, there ARE things we DO know for certain, in the context of what we know now, without any evidence to the contrary.
You can speculate all you want about whether Einstein (or Elvis) is dead or alive in some other dimension, but until you can demonstrate the existence of other dimensions they remain only theories and figments of imagination in this one, as foreign to reality and unreal as are leprechauns and unicorns.
If you think my "absolutist" mindset is all encompassing, think again. When it comes to the concepts of creativity, intuition, imagination, inspiration and consciousness, there is plenty of uncertainty. To deny there is any certainty is to deny the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, to be delusional. If you jump naked off a 1000 ft. cliff you WILL cease to be alive after gravity delivers you to the bottom, and the sudden stop disrupts your body into a non-functional biological puddle.
We can be absolutely CERTAIN that consciousness exists.
Definitions are of primary importance. If your basis of saying that everything is a probability that never reaches zero or one I will counter by arguing 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is close enough to call it absolute. In my view to do otherwise is to be impractical.
-
@Thom
Some philosophers believe consciousness is an illusion.
Daniel Dennett on Deflating Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYYFQiN052c
Ned Block on Consciousness as an Illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6SbPPL8tOI
Philosophy of Mind 5.1 - Eliminative Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acjpo_3j-B8
Eliminative materialism
https://youtu.be/4Sgow_QUzKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpJSeLY8cWs
Patricia Churchland on Eliminative Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzT0jHJdq7Q
Eliminative materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
-
@Thom
Some philosophers believe consciousness is an illusion.
That's like using your voice to tell me that words are meaningless. Self detonating, nonsequitor, irrational.
-
@Thom
Some philosophers believe consciousness is an illusion.
That's like using your voice to tell me that words are meaningless. Self detonating, nonsequitor, irrational.
Consciousness cannot be directly located in the brain nor do we know exactly the cause of it. So if it's irrational to say consciousness is an illusion in humans it also means you would have to say it's irrational to believe an AI doesn't have consciousness.
I don't claim to know the answer to these sorts of questions but philosophers are debating it. An AI for example could be a philosophical zombie, act conscious, but not really have consciousness. How do you know for sure that it has consciousness? You never know for sure unless you figure out exactly what consciousness is and how to measure it.
Is it irrational for people to say consciousness is an illusion if time is an illusion?
-
@Thom
Some philosophers believe consciousness is an illusion.
That's like using your voice to tell me that words are meaningless. Self detonating, nonsequitor, irrational.
Consciousness cannot be directly located in the brain nor do we know exactly the cause of it. So if it's irrational to say consciousness is an illusion in humans it also means you would have to say it's irrational to believe an AI doesn't have consciousness.
I don't claim to know the answer to these sorts of questions but philosophers are debating it. An AI for example could be a philosophical zombie, act conscious, but not really have consciousness. How do you know for sure that it has consciousness? You never know for sure unless you figure out exactly what consciousness is and how to measure it.
Is it irrational for people to say consciousness is an illusion if time is an illusion?
Just to make it perfectly clear, I am saying YES it is irrational for a human to say "consciousness is an illusion", b/c a human must exercise their intrinsic consciousness to have and express that idea. They are effectively saying they are an illusion. Illusions are not real by definition, so how could an illusion express an idea? By definition an illusion cannot. This is similar to one who believes in solipsism professing their belief to "someone else", when for such a person there is only the self.
For such a deep thinker as you obviously are luckybit, you don't seem to have a complete grasp of self detonating arguments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction).
Is it necessary to be conscious of time to be bound by it? Clearly not, as animals of various types have a very limited or no sense of time, yet any animal that makes sound must employ the concept of time as that is an inherent quality of sound. Do any animals have consciousness? Of those that do, are they conscious of of time, i.e. can they comprehend past and future? Does a dog or a cat possess consciousness? This question was dealt with in the video by Peter Russell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE#t=3135), did you watch it? It is quite a different matter to say animals have consciousness than to say they are sentient. If we didn't believe animals have consciousness why do we anesthetize them to perform surgery?
So yes, it IS irrational to say consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness is separate time, it can exist and be unaware of time, even in humans (i.e. we can be totally unaware of the passage of time in various circumstances, or can be compressed as often happens when faced with life or death situations).
-
Also, @fav if you so desire I am not opposed to moving this thread out of general discussion.
I think it's ran it's course, but if not I am certainly willing to continue this philosophical discussion elsewhere.
-
I have become very fascinated with Tauchain ever since the interview that Matthew Zipkin did on Lets Talk Bitcoin.
Ohad, the creator of Tauchain presents all the arguments why it's is not a good idea to use a Turing complete language for smart contracts. Naturally, he shares his criticism against Ethereum. He says, that because Turing complete languages can produce both true and false conclusions at the same time, Turing complete languages are not ideal for smart contracts.
And he gets into the semantic web, by discussing the need for human readable programming languages for smart contracts so that more than just programmers can understand what the code is doing. specifically he mentions Notation3.
The only thing missing from Tauchain, is a mechanism for voting. Which is the one of the things that Bitshares has developed successfully.
I still keep an eye on Bitshares, but I've come realize despite all the bells and whistles that developers are trying to Implement.... the one thing that really defines the difference between Bitcoin and the rest...is the fact that Bitcoin Mobile Wallet Apps exist.
And until Bitshares has an iOS app and a Android app, I don't see any reason why I should get into Bitshares.
-
Oh and btw I enjoyed Don Tapscotts presentation too!