Se vede de la un kilometru că eşti un informatician (scuzaţi-mi generalizarea) căci enunţi nişte teme filosofice în stil caracteristic: if a … then b…
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.

Ce zic eu, multe articole le alcatuiesc dupa ce generez un plan in forma de flowchart, insa acesta a fost scris “pur si simplu” (oricum, la nivel logic, in cap toate gindurile se stocheaza in asa forma, deci absenta unei scheme desenate pe foaie nu e un indicator). Nota: in curind va fi publicata o super-mega-istorie despre acest gen de notatie.

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 :-)

I never said philosophy wasn’t cool, I meant that the deeper you delve in it, the smaller the a/b ratio gets, where a is knowledge or comfort or appreciation, and b is hopelessness or sarcasm.

// 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)

Okay, as I was doing research for a school essay, I came across this topic, and others as well, (+ discussion with my father), so I thought I’d share what I learnt :)

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 :)

:)) foarte bine ai enuntat articolul. eu una cred ca knowledge in finita pentru oameni doar pentru ca al nostru creier (la nivelul la care se aflta acum) nu poate inghiti tot knowledgu din univers. Daca cu ochii vedem decat 5 % din tot ce exista in univers cum putem sa ajungem sa cunoastem totul? Putini sunt cei ce au abilitati supraomenesti, si le au pt ca le-au dezvboltat. Dar oricum pt om cantitatea de cunostinte pe car eacesta le poate asimila e limitata=> ca knowledge for humans is finite. :P iauti ce teorema am dezvoltat :))

szepi1991, thank you for your feedback. I’m afraid that I am not good enough at mathematics to be able to apply Godel’s theorem here and reach a solid conclusion.

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.

I think knowledge is infinite, or at least can be infinitely generated. The reason is that you will never be able to know that what you discover is indeed the way how things work.
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.