Is Mankind Smart Enough?

[Piers]

Clearly No. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that any universe model we construct will not cover everything. I really don’t think there is room for debate.

[hmkpoker]

I think it's pretty foolish to say that our brains will ever be able to comprehend all the complexities of existence...

...but perhaps we can build something that can.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, I grew up on terminator, but this really is inevitable... the only thing I think we can do about it is try to cement the "creator" thought in machine heads, because they will come to this conclusion.

wow, I hope I dont get flamed for what I just wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this type of scenario is not inevitable and very unlikely. I doubt we will ever be able to overcome nature in such a way. I think it will be nearly impossible to develop machines that can adapt as quickly to changes in the environment as quickly or as well as biological systems can.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly No. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that any universe model we construct will not cover everything. I really don’t think there is room for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not an expert on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, but I am fairly sure that it is not far reaching enough to make such statements. Certainly, euclidean geometry is a complete theory, so complete theories do exist. The existence of complete theories is enough to allow for the possibility that there may exist a complete final theory of the universe (although it could not be based on a recursive scheme I believe).

[flatline]

You are failing to think outside your own time frame. Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Computers get faster and faster, while software gets better and better. Eventually, we will develop A.I. You can debate that it will take 300 years instead of 50, but to say it won't happen is very short-sighted.

[hurlyburly]

I said yes, I can't see how it won't happen at some point in the future. Every few generations adds something significant to the general knowledge pool. I doubt humnan nature will allow for everyone to prove mathematically that it's correct, but several people will, and all it takes is one to figure it out, and then many can understand it.

Discovery is the key, mankind is keen on discovery and there is a lot of incomplete information.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
You are failing to think outside your own time frame. Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Computers get faster and faster, while software gets better and better. Eventually, we will develop A.I. You can debate that it will take 300 years instead of 50, but to say it won't happen is very short-sighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously misunderstand my point, so I will say it one more time. I think it is unlikely we will ever beat nature at its own game, adaptation. We may develop AI tomorrow, but I doubt it will ever be as good as nature's AI (us or our future iterations). We may develop machines that have some capacity for adaptation, but it will probably not be quick enough and random enough to survive major evironmental changes the way biological systems can. I think it is you that is being short-sighted. You look at the progress that is being made now and extrapolate it to where it has no business being. It took billions of years to make us, but you expect we will beat that in short order I guess.

[flatline]

Once AI equivalent to the intelligence of a person is developed, it is only a matter of time until there are machines twice as smart as a person, then 4x, then 10x, then 100x. These machines will be able to design and build things we can't even imagine, which should include self-adapting machines superior to current biological organisms.

Even looking at current technology, it is beginning. Robots that can walk and see their environment are getting better every year. Synthetic robotic skin was just developed that will allow machines to feel their environment. This is just the very very beginning. Technology advances.

[Lestat]

But what if the important answers are simply out of man's reach? In other words, we aren't smart enough and never will be? Unlike yourself, I think this is the more likely scenario.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">The existence of complete theories is enough to allow for the possibility that there may exist a complete final theory of the universe (although it could not be based on a recursive scheme I believe). </font>

I don't think there's much question that a complete theory of the universe exists. The question is will man ever figure it out?