Boundlessness requires a god or other universally dextrous 'machine'?

[Amorphos]

Boundlessness requires a god or other universally dextrous 'machine'?

Given an infinite cause [less would be bounded and require further causes] {?} and that such would necessarily be either a continuum {?} or an infinite act {?}, boundlessness requires universal dextrousness to facilitate its requirements.

We could assume that a simple process by an AI would be enough to calculate all that’s required to make a universe from the infinite cause, it just needs to be able to ‘fine tune’ the forces so as to bring them together as universe.

However, you need something to make that ^^ and it would need to be able to contemplate infinity x all-time, such that it can arrive at what’s needed.
It would need to be able to contemplate and manifest not only this universe but many examples of universe along that continuum. That is, given that all universes are not exactly the same {?}.

Q. do we not ultimately arrive at an incredible machine, even if we have not already? If not an universally dextrous one, then an extremely versatile one such that it can work out all the variables as time progresses.

…a machine that can think, is and is conscious so as to be able to think?

…perhaps if not conscious then perhaps something that can make multi-perspective observations [if that is not what consciousness is!]. it seams that all the particles in the universe can observe and act accordingly, no?

[chriscase]

Quetz, these concepts are part and parcel of mathematics and computation theory. I commend you to their study.

A couple of points:
- Do not confuse infinity with boundlessness. A set or series that proceeds without bound is easy to construct; an infinite entity is liable to be mathematical nonsense. Look at the real numbers, the integers. They are without bound, yet they contain no infinite points. It is this feature that the mathematically naive fail to grasp when they attempt to use mathematics to discuss philosophical "infinity".
- Turing developed a model of artificial intelligence under the assumption that, if a machine can fool an observer regarding whether it is a person or a machine, it has for all practical purposes become intelligent. It's worth considering whether you agree with this rather pragmatic approach. However, also consider that the alternative appears to be humano-centric bigotry.

[Amorphos]

chriscase
I used boundlessness specifically because of the problems with infinity, though I feel that math is the problem here. We expect objects to act like their mathematical descriptions which after all are metaphoric, I don’t have a problem with an infinite ocean - let us say, being construed into a boundless stream and then to a limited form like a raindrop. …if you see my ‘hyperfuidic’ [TM] meaning.

Turing developed a model of artificial intelligence under the assumption that, if a machine can fool an observer regarding whether it is a person or a machine, it has for all practical purposes become intelligent.

As great as he was this argument assumes the computer is not merely mimicking human intelligence!
After multiple arguments on this, I have resolved that one cannot know anything from an observational perspective. If someone acted like you only you as the subject could possibly know for certain if it truly is or not, one only has to imagine a replica stood next to you which to the observer seams the same as you.

Mainly here we are asking what it would take to compute, design and make a universe. For me if we can rub god out of this argument it makes for a fascinating discussion e.g. a disembodied intellect may replicate itself, this could be what our consciousnesses are. Secondly how do we describe such a disembodied intellect? …etc
.

[chriscase]

I used boundlessness specifically because of the problems with infinity, though I feel that math is the problem here. We expect objects to act like their mathematical descriptions which after all are metaphoric, I don’t have a problem with an infinite ocean - let us say, being construed into a boundless stream and then to a limited form like a raindrop. …if you see my ‘hyperfuidic’ [TM] meaning.

Hmm, I can't really say I get the "hyperfuidic" meaning.

I do think you are selling mathematics short if you want to abandon it in order to arrive at something different from the standard model. It's perfectly reasonable to work from an alternate set of axioms and construct a mathematical model that has different properties than the standard model. But the construction of such an alternate model would certainly require definitions and logical inference.

If you don't use logical rigor and clear definitions to explore the "infinity" or boundless properties you are interested in, you are going to end up with word salad. If you do use logical rigor, you are going to end up with mathematics, albeit perhaps an alternate model.

As great as he was this argument assumes the computer is not merely mimicking human intelligence!
After multiple arguments on this, I have resolved that one cannot know anything from an observational perspective. If someone acted like you only you as the subject could possibly know for certain if it truly is or not, one only has to imagine a replica stood next to you which to the observer seams the same as you.

Mainly here we are asking what it would take to compute, design and make a universe. For me if we can rub god out of this argument it makes for a fascinating discussion e.g. a disembodied intellect may replicate itself, this could be what our consciousnesses are. Secondly how do we describe such a disembodied intellect? …etc
.

Wouldn't the first problem be how such a computer could design itself? Or does this computer act in a universe in which it does not exist?

[Amorphos]

Hmm, I can't really say I get the "hyperfuidic" meaning.

No-one does, just as no-one really knows whats going on with QM effects [though they have many theories etc]. its just a term that I use to describe what some thinkers have been alluding to; that we are limiting a very fluidic thing [universe] by constraining reality to math, to the meanings we attribute to it.
Its essentially the philosophy of thinking about the object over and above the descriptions. It negates the age old idea that there is a place out there full of principles and law etc.

I do think you are selling mathematics short if you want to abandon it in order to arrive at something different from the standard model. It's perfectly reasonable to work from an alternate set of axioms and construct a mathematical model that has different properties than the standard model. But the construction of such an alternate model would certainly require definitions and logical inference.

I don’t want to sell math short or for it to sell reality short, it works perfectly well for what it needs to do. However we have the task of describing reality as a multiplicity of one e.g. is infinite and finite and a number of other seemingly contradictory values. Many philosophers I speak to [and some scientists] think the problem is in the descriptions rather than what really out there.
An alternate model begins I think at this point, and we are nowhere near agreeing on even that let alone a hyperfluidic reality map.

Wouldn't the first problem be how such a computer could design itself? Or does this computer act in a universe in which it does not exist?

It could be the result of things self organising [as a hyperfluid], though I’d assume it to be prior to the universe we cannot really say how far the universe extends. For example it may stretch back way before the big bang or external to a cyclic universe, hence it could be part of the function of the larger universe ~ which is most likely omho.

[chriscase]

No-one does, just as no-one really knows whats going on with QM effects [though they have many theories etc]. its just a term that I use to describe what some thinkers have been alluding to; that we are limiting a very fluidic thing [universe] by constraining reality to math, to the meanings we attribute to it.
Its essentially the philosophy of thinking about the object over and above the descriptions. It negates the age old idea that there is a place out there full of principles and law etc.

I don’t want to sell math short or for it to sell reality short, it works perfectly well for what it needs to do. However we have the task of describing reality as a multiplicity of one e.g. is infinite and finite and a number of other seemingly contradictory values. Many philosophers I speak to [and some scientists] think the problem is in the descriptions rather than what really out there.
An alternate model begins I think at this point, and we are nowhere near agreeing on even that let alone a hyperfluidic reality map.

It could be the result of things self organising [as a hyperfluid], though I’d assume it to be prior to the universe we cannot really say how far the universe extends. For example it may stretch back way before the big bang or external to a cyclic universe, hence it could be part of the function of the larger universe ~ which is most likely omho.

I guess I am still inclined to the view that there is something off with this line of thought.

The notion that we somehow "limit" reality to "math" just doesn't track for me. Math is the language of science; reality is what we assume lies behind our observations, i.e., the source of observed data. A mathematical model can be (and frequently is) constructed on the basis of logic alone. Whether it comes into use as a description of reality depends entirely on whether it turns out to be useful to do so.

When observed data is discovered that has no mathematical model to describe it, what often follows is a very interesting growth in various areas of applied mathematics - often with revolutionary expansion in our understanding. I don't see how any of this would indicate a fundamental problem with mathematics as a description of reality. Quite the opposite.

When you say you want to describe the universe as self-contradictory, I don't see how observed data would demand this. Is there a body of observation that would push us in this direction? Sitting in a chair and thinking about the universe doesn't count.