| « Privacy în Moldova | Futurama characters in vectors » |
Is knowledge finite?
UPDATE: An epilogue and a meta-epilogue were added
(George Box)
Is there a state in which a civilization can say "we know everything there is to know"? Is the chain of discoveries and inventions an endless one? Or is there a point where it all stops, and there will be nothing left in the universe that can surprise us?
At first it seems that knowledge has no bounds, because when we invent/discover something, the new information can be combined with older building blocks - thus something new is obtained. The more elements you have, the more ways there are to combine them - so there is clearly no bound.
Here is a simple example, we only have 10 digits: {0, 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} - but we can write an infinite number of numbers with these 10 digits; i.e. the number of things we can do is infinite, while the number of building blocks is finite.
Follow up:
Currently science evolves in two ways:
-
discovering new elements (smaller particles, new materials, etc. From now on these will be referred to as "atoms" and "rules of the game")
-
combining elements and obtaining new technologies, or improving existing ones (let us call this "playing with atoms")
I will now make the following assertions:
-
#1 is finite, i.e. there is a point we can reach, once there - we know we know all the atoms of the universe (note: by "atom" I mean "something that cannot be further divided", and not "that what molecules are made of")
-
#2 is infinite, i.e. with all the knowledge about all the primitive elements we can build derived elements, and then new derivatives based on the "first level" derivatives, and so on
-
a civilization becomes "omnignostic" if
-
they're done with #1 (discover all the atoms and all the rules of the game)
-
they can correctly predict the outcome of any experiment and simulate it
-
they're done with #1 (discover all the atoms and all the rules of the game)
So, primitive knowledge (atoms) is finite, derived knowledge is infinite. However, we can master infinity if we learn all the rules of the game.
How is this useful?
If I am right:
-
If knowledge is finite, therefore it can be mastered.
-
If it can be mastered, the state of "mastership" can be achieved.
-
If this state can be achieved, a sufficiently advanced civilization (given enough time to develop) will do it.
-
Therefore god (if any) is nothing but a very developed civilization (i.e. nothing super-natural, just an entity with enough time on its hands and the will to learn).
If I am wrong:
-
If knowledge is infinite (i.e. the number of atoms is infinite), it cannot be mastered.
-
If it cannot be mastered, the state of "mastership" cannot be achieved, thus there cannot be a civilization or entity that can correctly predict the outcome of any experiment (simulation, phenomenon, etc).
-
Thus the best result we can get is an entity that represents all the knowledge and information of the universe.
-
The only such entity is a 1:1 map of the universe itself.
-
This entity has no conscience, because it cannot run a specific simulation or tweak its parameters and then watch the outcome; it's just there (here)
-
Therefore
-
god (if any) has no conscience, no purpose, no drive, no will, etc
-
most likely this means there is no god at all (the universe is just a bunch of rocks [some hot, some cold] with space between them, what's so special about that? are we back to worshipping rocks? :-)
-
god (if any) has no conscience, no purpose, no drive, no will, etc
In either case: god is nothing special
-
it is either a state that can be achieved by any sufficiently advanced civilization
-
or a state of no particular interest to us - "if we didn't exist, there would be no one to care about it", says each civilization out there
How do you know you know everything, what if you're limited by your sensors' resolution?
It is true that one can only see as far as their eyes (and devices) allow them to. A civilization can continue improving their sensors and methods, up to the point where they cannot come up with anything better. But does the fact that nothing new is discovered mean that there is nothing else to discover?
A civilization has the potential to know everything there is to know, but be unaware of that (since they continue looking because there is no guarantee they know it all). Thus we can have two types of omnignostic civilizations:
-
Aware omnignostic
-
Unaware omnignostic
Assertion
-
god (if any) is an unaware omnignostic, and the purpose is to become an aware omnignostic
Hey, at least this way god has a reason to exist ;-)
Further thoughts, is mathematics discovered or invented?
We can try to tackle the problem of the finitude of knowledge from another angle, using mathematics, by figuring out whether it is invented (invent = "come up with a new concept") or discovered (discover = "find something that was there").
If it is discovered, it means there is a finite number of atoms and rules of the game, therefore one can know all mathematics.
If it is invented, it means the number of atoms and rules of the game is infinite.
Note: one should refine the definitions for 'invent' and 'discover' before engaging into such a debate, because otherwise it is reduced to playing with words.
Epilogue
A highly-advanced future human race finally created a sentient device out of massive resources, linked from across every corner of humanity. They asked it one question to test it: "Is there a god?" The computer replied: "There is... now."
Meta-epilogue
Most people, assume that the computer is asserting its own divinity. But, when asked who god is these same people reply "He is my creator." And to the computer, humans are the creator.
Further reading
- a discussion about mathematics on Slashdot
- a previously posted hint on the finitude of knowledge
8 comments
Impresia că ai elaborat o diagramă logică înainte de a expune tema. Funny :)
ah, super, mi-a plăcut articolul!
a 1:1 map of the universe itself
Yep, and how do we store that map, except by acknowledging that it exists?
We need MANY atoms for the paper molecules used to store all that is known, up to now, about A SINGLE ATOM. But if the atom exists, and it occupies the same space as itself (hehe), how do we separate existence from knowledge?
(define "know", define "exist".)
This is why I find philosophy so depressing... (But isn't the last sentence itself a philosophical question? Aargh!)
PS. In a book I've read recently this same idea is applied to the concept of memory and imagination. I will publish a review shortly.
De fapt, inspiratia a venit de la cursul de filozofie, diferite persoane isi exprimau viziunile lor asupra lumii intr-un astfel de format, numerotind pasii, etc. E o metoda eficienta de a exprima un gind si de a transmite un mesaj cititorului; nu e ceva tipic informaticii.
Constantin, I think philosophy is not depressing; in fact it was one of my favourite classes at the uni, it encouraged thinking and critique. That's how my colleagues and I ended up discussing really high-tech things and pushing the bounds of "normal" beyond the normal; also, that's how I got to know them much better.
Some may argue that philosophy is about playing with words and discussing nothing (hey, Seinfeld managed to make nine seasons of a "show about nothing", spanning from 1989 to 1998 :-)
The most important part was that it affected me in ways I did not expect. Just like scientists building X end up with a new weapon (or they other way around), discussing this kind of stuff makes you better at other things and has a major impact on your decision making process.
Also, philosophy is really cool :-) it is connected with many aspects of our life without us realizing it. Here is a connection between one of Zeno's paradoxes and a modern joke ;-)
A woman is looking for a vacuum cleaner in a store. The salesman says "lady, this vacuum cleaner will cut the amount of work to be done in half!". "Great", she replies, "I'll take two!"
Note: this one's from a book about philosophy, a review of which will be published shortly :-)
// That means we have to derive the function, find its optimum and go no further than that B-)
I haven't studied anything in the field seriously (only read some books), but wasn't Schopenhauer the one who said, the more pessimistic an idea is, the more accepted it becomes? (i.e. human nature is attracted to negativism)
so, the mathematician Kurt Gödel has true incompleteness theories, one of which states - in my words, that:
in a system derived from a set of necessarily complex axioms, there are truth that cannot be derived from the given axioms.
Thus we need to make that truth an axiom as well. However this gives rise to the same scenario, and we will always have to keep adding those bits of truths as axioms, and the cycle will never end.
this necessarily complex system of axioms means any system that includes (or is) the natural numbers.
Btw I know a similar joke, about a fisherman who catches the golden fish and wishes for a bottle of beer that fills up by itself when there is no more in it. Having two wishes, in his happiness that the bottle works (he had to test it of course), he wishes for one more :)
My first reaction is "ok, let us take several sets of axioms, then make a union of the sets of resulting truths - tada!", but this doesn't resolve the 'infinite loop' problem.
Someone said that "winning doesn't matter, trying to win does" - so we can at least try to have fun in the process, rather than give up.
Thanks for the joke, it is a good one. Also, allow me to tell you that talking to parents is always a good idea :-)
Cosanzeana, sunt de acord ca pentru un om volumul de cunostinte e finit (creierul nu e mare, noi murim repede, modul in care se specializeaza creierul pe parcursul vietii nu ne permite sa intelegem toate domeniile, etc), dar articolul e despre cunostinte in sine; i.e. se discuta un punct de vedere care nu e antropocentric. In acelasi timp - ai dreptate, daca nu vom putea sti totul niciodata - oare are rost sa cautam? Poate in episodul urmator totusi vom afla.
What I understand by science is that certain things are observed in nature, then smart people generate a hypothesis, then they devise experiments and check if the results match the predictions. Of course there is rigorous checking of the results, and the whole process must be much more complicated but the idea is that this will be a neverending game of guessing the solution that fits best the reality as it can be seen by the current scientific society, at its current level of development and sophistication. There is no way to make sure that we will find the "absolute truth" as long as guessing is involved. On the other hand if you don't guess, then you should know for sure which is impossible (that is why God "exists" - people skipped the game of guessing and just assumed that the God exists for sure).
Science is about stretching the limits of our imagination and I think the human race will never admit that its imagination has limits.