Is absolute knowledge reserved for god??

[underpressure]

God in quite a loose sense... If the universe and everything in it follows a mechanistic, cause and effect type system, so is deterministic, and absolute knowledge of the universe exists, that is there are a finite amount of laws that can explain everything in universe.

However, there are several key reasons why we can never logically have absolute knowledge, nor can we prove the universe is fully deterministic.

1. Chaos Theory - No matter how accurate our measurements are there is no way to be precise, as we can always add on a decimal place and be more accurate, so following that if our initial measurements can't be precise not only does that prevent us from obtaining absolute knowledge it prevents us from determining the future accurately.

2. Measurement problem/quantum theory - We can never know the position or momentum of an electron at any given time, and even if we could see an electron, there would be no way of measuring its position or momentum without interference.

3. We are limited to our human senses to experience the universe, as soundwaves and photons hit our ears and eyes the brain neurons start firing off, and this is our (part) experience, but our experience is only subjective.

4. Even if you could get by these seemingly impossibilities for us humans which I don't think you can, you are still going to face yet another problem when measuring, assuming we're using a tool in our quest for absolute knowledge, an incredibly powerful computer that models and recreates the universe it would face a problem as soon as an observer wanted to look into the future as the observer would likely change his plans on the news of hearing the future. So let's say our computer was programmed cleverly and had already predicted that the user was going to check the future, and the computer had already calculated how the human would react to the computer's projection of the future, so it then have to recalculate the observers reaction to the computers new calculation for the future. Now if you follow this, you'll probably realise this is going to send the computer into a loop as it has to keep recalculating the observers new reaction to its new calculation of the future. The way I see it, the only way this loop will be ended is if

By huge coincidence the computer eventually calculates a future where the observer upon seeing this future follows to the letter as calculated by the computer. Then the computer can carry on calculating the future UNTIL the next time it predicts an observer will want to look into the future, then it will go back into the same loop.

BUT

If the computer eventually repeats one of its calculations of how the the observer will react to seeing the future, then by logic it will be stuck in an endless loop repeating the same calculations over and over.

To illustrate this problem simply I'll show the loop:

1. Computer models replica universe from big bang to year 2020AD
2. Year2020AD; Computer predicts first user will want to know what is happening in 2030AD so gets on with the calculation before user arrives
3. Calculation for 2020AD-2030AD is done
4. Computer then simulates what will happen between 2020AD-2030AD but this time it takes into account that user is aware of computer's prediction in 3
5. Computer checks to see if 3=4, if yes go to 6, if not insert result of 4 into step 3 and go back to 4
6. Computer tells users to sod off and don't come back till 2030AD


It's actually very unlikely the computer would even get to step 6 when the user makes any sort of interference, to get there you'd have to have the same permutation in both step 3 and step 4, which I think is logically impossible anyway as the starting conditions will differ slightly.


So logically it looks impossible to make any meaningful long term predictions from within the system. The mere observing the prediction from within the system will destroy the prediction.


I'm not sure if everyone will agree with my assertions on what is logically impossible, but with our current way of thinking absolute knowledge doesn't look like something we'll be able to aspire to, you'd have to think it is something reserved for only the Gods?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Your objection to absolute knowledge is that you can change the prediction by knowing it and acting against it? Does not the same apply to gods? Unless you are assuming that the gods have no interest in changing the future but the same could be said of the person looking at the prediction.

When you start thinking about having absolute knowledge in minute detail of what is to come then bring in the ability to change that would you not also already know what the result of that change will be so regardless of what you decide to do you will already know the outcome and what you are going to do in it?

 

[underpressure]

Your objection to absolute knowledge is that you can change the prediction by knowing it and acting against it? Does not the same apply to gods? Unless you are assuming that the gods have no interest in changing the future but the same could be said of the person looking at the prediction.

When you start thinking about having absolute knowledge in minute detail of what is to come then bring in the ability to change that would you not also already know what the result of that change will be so regardless of what you decide to do you will already know the outcome and what you are going to do in it?

A god (that acts outside of our universe) can theoretically be in full knowledge of the future of our universe withou that effecting the future. This can not apply to someone who acts inside the universe, because as soon as they think they might be in full knowledge of what will happen, they will have to redo their calculations to take into account their new knowledge of the future which they couldn't have logically included in their calculations in the first place, which means they can never have absolute knowledge of our universe.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

A god (that acts outside of our universe) can theoretically be in full knowledge of the future of our universe withou that effecting the future. This can not apply to someone who acts inside the universe, because as soon as they think they might be in full knowledge of what will happen, they will have to redo their calculations to take into account their new knowledge of the future which they couldn't have logically included in their calculations in the first place, which means they can never have absolute knowledge of our universe.

So then your solution is that the only way someone could be in full knowledge of the contents and future of a certain universe is if they themselfs where outside of that universe and thus THEY where not part of that knowledge of that universe.

Which is a interesting idea but it would mean that say if you have a single person sealed in a cave where he cannot interact with the universe could be in full possession of the knowledge the machine would provide since his knowledge could not effect the future outside of that cave.

Essentially all you would need to do is have the machine calculate the events that would take place outside of the cave, Thus putting them outside of the consequences. Much like how god puts himself outside the consequences in his own cave of non-existance to make his knowledge full.

btw,
Is it me or did this topic get absolutely no attention whatsoever was this done to dead before something?

 

[underpressure]

So then your solution is that the only way someone could be in full knowledge of the contents and future of a certain universe is if they themselfs where outside of that universe and thus THEY where not part of that knowledge of that universe.

Which is a interesting idea but it would mean that say if you have a single person sealed in a cave where he cannot interact with the universe could be in full possession of the knowledge the machine would provide since his knowledge could not effect the future outside of that cave.

Essentially all you would need to do is have the machine calculate the events that would take place outside of the cave, Thus putting them outside of the consequences. Much like how god puts himself outside the consequences in his own cave of non-existance to make his knowledge full.

Even in a cave though chaos theory at some point is going to take an effect on his results, even if this cave was seemingly self contained, any actions such as breathing will eventually have some effect on the atomic structure of his cave, and thus eventually having some effect on the rest of the world. Plus it still doesn't get him very far in having absolute knowledge of inside the cave which is still a part of the universe, although I'd agree isolation would be his best shot at getting fairly accurate results for everywhere else (if he could get past the barriers mentioned in the first post).

btw,
Is it me or did this topic get absolutely no attention whatsoever was this done to dead before something?

I did post this in the wrong section initially, and just got it moved to philosophy.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Even in a cave though chaos theory at some point is going to take an effect on his results, even if this cave was seemingly self contained, any actions such as breathing will eventually have some effect on the atomic structure of his cave, and thus eventually having some effect on the rest of the world. Plus it still doesn't get him very far in having absolute knowledge of inside the cave which is still a part of the universe, although I'd agree isolation would be his best shot at getting fairly accurate results for everywhere else (if he could get past the barriers mentioned in the first post).

While it may technically have some effect the trick is that by now showing the inside of the cave the viewers actions are not known in advance and thus he cannot alter them.

Though I will concede that the cave is part of the universe and thus you could argue that he still does not have absolute knowledge I was hoping we could avoid bringing up going into other dimensions/universes/outside the universe After all we're talking about absolute knowledge here with the only snag being that the viewer is constantly screwing up the future so the knowledge to do any of these things would be available.

I did post this in the wrong section initially, and just got it moved to philosophy.

Oh, I thought the Mods usually made a post to indicate that it had been moved. where was it at before?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

So logically it looks impossible to make any meaningful long term predictions from within the system. The mere observing the prediction from within the system will destroy the prediction.

Yes and no. If the future is fed back to the present then one ends up with a system that may or may not achieve a stable equilibrium. The stability will depend on how much damping there is in the system and how quickly the computer can generate revised forecasts and who is aware of the forecasts and what their influence is. I suppose you are simplifying the problem by assuming the forecasts are accurate and the computer is infinitely fast.

 

[ug333]

If you believe the universe is deterministic, then it should be hypothetically possible even if you are within the system assuming infinitely accurate readings. You yourself would be deterministic, so your actions could be predicted along with everything else. Yes, this requires the lack of free will.

If you do not believe the universe is deterministic, no one could know everything. The moment you turned your head to gather more information, the rest of the universe would behave differently behind your back.

So, let's assume you are the deterministic sort, and that someone has a magic wand that can measure all things perfectly. Unless we find that space/time is broken into discrete packets (it has been hypothesized by some, but who knows), you would require infinite space to store the location of one electron, as you would require infinite accuracy to predict forward due to chaotic systems. This negates the ability to store in any way the information as you moved on to the next piece of information.

Even IF time/space wasn't continuous, you would still have to collect data fast enough to stay ahead of the changes due to interactions with the, as of yet, unknown parts of the universe. That means you have to collect data for everything and keep moving at the speed of light to prevent any unexpected interactions from changing your observations behind you.

So, now you have to get to the speed of light, and at the same time bypass little problems like uncertainty. So, assuming quantum mechanics are deterministic, space/time is discrete, and you can collect perfectly accurate data while still traveling at the speed of light, all data could be collected. Unless our current science is wrong on a whole boatload of stuff, though, it is impossible.

 

[tucker58]

If you believe the universe is deterministic, then it should be hypothetically possible even if you are within the system assuming infinitely accurate readings. You yourself would be deterministic, so your actions could be predicted along with everything else. Yes, this requires the lack of free will.

If you do not believe the universe is deterministic, no one could know everything. The moment you turned your head to gather more information, the rest of the universe would behave differently behind your back.

So, let's assume you are the deterministic sort, and that someone has a magic wand that can measure all things perfectly. Unless we find that space/time is broken into discrete packets (it has been hypothesized by some, but who knows), you would require infinite space to store the location of one electron, as you would require infinite accuracy to predict forward due to chaotic systems. This negates the ability to store in any way the information as you moved on to the next piece of information.

Even IF time/space wasn't continuous, you would still have to collect data fast enough to stay ahead of the changes due to interactions with the, as of yet, unknown parts of the universe. That means you have to collect data for everything and keep moving at the speed of light to prevent any unexpected interactions from changing your observations behind you.

So, now you have to get to the speed of light, and at the same time bypass little problems like uncertainty. So, assuming quantum mechanics are deterministic, space/time is discrete, and you can collect perfectly accurate data while still traveling at the speed of light, all data could be collected. Unless our current science is wrong on a whole boatload of stuff, though, it is impossible.

Hi sir ug! Your input to this topic is interesting and I am inclined to think that you are right .

"So, now you have to get to the speed of light, and at the same time bypass little problems like uncertainty. So, assuming quantum mechanics are deterministic, space/time is discrete, and you can collect perfectly accurate data while still traveling at the speed of light, all data could be collected. Unless our current science is wrong on a whole boatload of stuff, though, it is impossible."

Is it predestination or can you know the future and you can change it? That is an age old argument.

Anywho ug, I love your post and you have said "hello" in an extremely interesting way!

just love!

tuck

 

[variant]

Absolute knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is only possible through thought, which is only possible through observation, which requires division.

So, both observing and thinking about a unity (which would be required for absolute knoledge) are impossible, so therefore absolute knowledge is impossible.

 

[underpressure]

If you believe the universe is deterministic, then it should be hypothetically possible even if you are within the system assuming infinitely accurate readings. You yourself would be deterministic, so your actions could be predicted along with everything else. Yes, this requires the lack of free will.

The universe might be deterministic for an outside observer (god), it can't be possible to predict even hypothetically for us though. Let's pretend we have 2 universes that are deterministic, our universe, and a controlled test universe. Both universes have been running exactly the same up till now. We manage to (somehow) make infinitely accurate calculations at infinite speed in our universe (which is logically impossible, the only way we could achieve such a feat is for the computer to leave our universe so it is outside the realms of time make the calculations then rejoin our universe at exactly the same point), at say point x in time. In the other universe though (our controlled test) no calculations or predictions have been made.

Now we get our predictions back at point x in time (instantaneously), now will these predictions be correct for our universe, the test universe or both? Logically, the prediction can no longer be accurate for both universes, as from point x in time each universe is different, one universe has a prediction, the other doesn't. So they're no longer the same. Which means our predictions are either good for the test universe, or our universe, but not both. And seeing as we're left with the same loop problem we were left with in my OP with self interference, I'd say the predictions are only good for the test universe at best.

Now admittedly, this thought experiment causes a paradox, as if both universes were really deterministic then the same people would have been making the same calculations on both universes, our problem here again lies at the root of being inside the system. Both universes (if truly deterministic) will get the same prediction, except the prediction will be what would have happened in the universe if we'd never done any calculations and made a prediction, so it would be wrong. If we can leave the universe make the calculations and never come back, that's the only way we can have absolute knowledge of this universe, then you may as well call us god, god of the universe anyway, if we had that sort of technology.

So, it raises another question, if our universe is all there is, by definition, would we have to say it isn't deterministic considering we can't logically determine the future, it's impossible? Does it only become deterministic if there is a reality outside of the frame of our universe that can determine the universe? But then if this is the only universe and there is nothing else, there can only be one outcome, so that would mean it is deterministic? Or can it be both deterministic and not deterministic at the same time? This is hurting my head!

 

[underpressure]

While it may technically have some effect the trick is that by now showing the inside of the cave the viewers actions are not known in advance and thus he cannot alter them.

Though I will concede that the cave is part of the universe and thus you could argue that he still does not have absolute knowledge I was hoping we could avoid bringing up going into other dimensions/universes/outside the universe After all we're talking about absolute knowledge here with the only snag being that the viewer is constantly screwing up the future so the knowledge to do any of these things would be available.



Oh, I thought the Mods usually made a post to indicate that it had been moved. where was it at before?

I PMd them to move it, I posted it in E&M originally.

 

[underpressure]

Yes and no. If the future is fed back to the present then one ends up with a system that may or may not achieve a stable equilibrium. The stability will depend on how much damping there is in the system and how quickly the computer can generate revised forecasts and who is aware of the forecasts and what their influence is. I suppose you are simplifying the problem by assuming the forecasts are accurate and the computer is infinitely fast.

I don't think you could put a number on how unlikely it would find a stable equilibrium. It would have to make a prediction, then make another prediction with the user aware of the prediciton, and keep doing that till you get 2 exact same results twice in a row. So it might theoretically happen after trillion^trillion+ of recalculations, and hopefully it doesn't stumble across a way of tricking the user into ending the universe or something, but if at any one time over those trillions of calculations it repeats the same outcome it had calculated in any previous calculation, but not twice in a row, it will go into and endless loop and never reach an equilibrium.

 

[tucker58]

I'm not sure if everyone will agree with my assertions on what is logically impossible, but with our current way of thinking absolute knowledge doesn't look like something we'll be able to aspire to, you'd have to think it is something reserved for only the Gods?

I would have to say that not even the gods can predict things "absolutely" because Creation has at all times 2% creativity built into it. This random chaos, so to speak, can not be predicted. This 2% creativity is built into the system to prevent set pattern stagnation. If one includes the whole system, which is really big, and one's study is over time, the best that one can achieve as predictability is 98%. Even the gods

love,

tuck

 

[underpressure]

Hi sir ug! Your input to this topic is interesting and I am inclined to think that you are right .

"So, now you have to get to the speed of light, and at the same time bypass little problems like uncertainty. So, assuming quantum mechanics are deterministic, space/time is discrete, and you can collect perfectly accurate data while still traveling at the speed of light, all data could be collected. Unless our current science is wrong on a whole boatload of stuff, though, it is impossible."

Is it predestination or can you know the future and you can change it? That is an age old argument.

Anywho ug, I love your post and you have said "hello" in an extremely interesting way!

just love!

tuck

If the question is, is the universe determined or non determined, I dunno, it seems to be an optical illusion, depends which perspective you are looking at it from. It is determined if we look at it from a God perspective, from our perspective it doesn't seem determined. I guess maybe you could compare it to the question of whether the earth is flat or spherical. We might not have been able to see conclusive pictures that it was spherical before we sent satellites into space, but we still knew it was spherical from scientific observation. The unanswered questions are getting tougher now, I'd go with everything in the universe is determined, although following that reasoning on you are always going to have an unanswered question, when all is said and done our perspective of reality is only really optimised for survival on earth and we may never know the answers to the big questions.

We can't know the future though, so we don't know if we can change it, if we knew the future then it follows we definitely wouldn't be able to change it. At best we can make predictions and take into account those predictions when we're planning the future.

 

[ug333]

The universe might be deterministic for an outside observer (god), it can't be possible to predict even hypothetically for us though. Let's pretend we have 2 universes that are deterministic, our universe, and a controlled test universe. Both universes have been running exactly the same up till now. We manage to (somehow) make infinitely accurate calculations at infinite speed in our universe (which is logically impossible, the only way we could achieve such a feat is for the computer to leave our universe so it is outside the realms of time make the calculations then rejoin our universe at exactly the same point), at say point x in time. In the other universe though (our controlled test) no calculations or predictions have been made.

Now we get our predictions back at point x in time (instantaneously), now will these predictions be correct for our universe, the test universe or both? Logically, the prediction can no longer be accurate for both universes, as from point x in time each universe is different, one universe has a prediction, the other doesn't. So they're no longer the same. Which means our predictions are either good for the test universe, or our universe, but not both. And seeing as we're left with the same loop problem we were left with in my OP with self interference, I'd say the predictions are only good for the test universe at best.

Like you alluded to later, if the universes are deterministic and both systems are identical, the calculations will be done in both. If an incredibly small variance is introduced in the beginning that has no noticeable impact until the point where it causes one universe to have a person performing this effort and one universe that does not, then that difference would be measurable and hypothetically predictable.

I think the massive problem with achieving this doesn't center around the person gathering the data impacting the universe. In a deterministic universe with sufficient information, their impact can be determined. I think the problem is around the sheer impossibility (by current understanding) of gathering the information itself.

Like I said before, in a non-deterministic universe, it is quite simply impossible no matter how it is sliced.

"So, it raises another question, if our universe is all there is, by definition, would we have to say it isn't deterministic considering we can't logically determine the future, it's impossible?" Why is it logically impossible to predict the future? I see no logical flaw if the universe is deterministic.

 

[tucker58]

If the question is, is the universe determined or non determined, I dunno, it seems to be an optical illusion, depends which perspective you are looking at it from. It is determined if we look at it from a God perspective, from our perspective it doesn't seem determined. I guess maybe you could compare it to the question of whether the earth is flat or spherical. We might not have been able to see conclusive pictures that it was spherical before we sent satellites into space, but we still knew it was spherical from scientific observation. The unanswered questions are getting tougher now, I'd go with everything in the universe is determined, although following that reasoning on you are always going to have an unanswered question, when all is said and done our perspective of reality is only really optimised for survival on earth and we may never know the answers to the big questions.

We can't know the future though, so we don't know if we can change it, if we knew the future then it follows we definitely wouldn't be able to change it. At best we can make predictions and take into account those predictions when we're planning the future.

The universe is both determined and undetermined at any given point in time. Luckily the undetermined part is only 2% over the whole. I agree with you that you can not predict the future, because the are too many variables and within those variables there is creativity at work (unforeseen and unpredictable random action that comes with the system). Which is why I personally do not attempt to predict the future, I just hope that random falls in my favor. Sometimes it does and some times it does not .

love,

tuck

 

[tucker58]

Like you alluded to later, if the universes are deterministic and both systems are identical, the calculations will be done in both. If an incredibly small variance is introduced in the beginning that has no noticeable impact until the point where it causes one universe to have a person performing this effort and one universe that does not, then that difference would be measurable and hypothetically predictable.

I think the massive problem with achieving this doesn't center around the person gathering the data impacting the universe. In a deterministic universe with sufficient information, their impact can be determined. I think the problem is around the sheer impossibility (by current understanding) of gathering the information itself.

Like I said before, in a non-deterministic universe, it is quite simply impossible no matter how it is sliced.

"So, it raises another question, if our universe is all there is, by definition, would we have to say it isn't deterministic considering we can't logically determine the future, it's impossible?" Why is it logically impossible to predict the future? I see no logical flaw if the universe is deterministic.

ug you can not have two universes because both universes are a part of the whole. You can have two rooms in a house, but they are still a part of the house.

love,

tuck

 

[Bushido216]

Even if you know everything, you can never know that you know everything.

QED

 

[ug333]

ug you can not have two universes because both universes are a part of the whole. You can have two rooms in a house, but they are still a part of the house.

love,

tuck

I take it you aren't a fan of the term multiverse.