Is Mankind Smart Enough?

[Lestat]

I think we agree and are merely quibbling over semantics. It is the nature of Mankind to be curious and embark on a never ending quest for knowledge and exploration. I have no doubt that our accomplishments to date will pale miserably compared to what we will one day achieve in advancements and knowledge.

I just think it's interesting to contemplate man's limitations as a species and member of this universe. My comment about the dog was to show that they can also be very curious creatures and given the chance to evolve over millions of more years, might one day day develop advanced forms of communication, etc. But they will nevertheless be bound by constrictions. Can it not be the same with man only on a different scale?

[handsome]

Yes.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I take my own intuition with a grain of salt. I give yours (or anyone else's for that matter) no credibility whatsoever. Intuition is not an arguement. I still think completeness is possible. Very simple systems are capable of very complex behavior. I don't put anything past mother nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if your assurtion about completness being possable is not based on intuition, what is it based upon?

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank"and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take my own intuition with a grain of salt. I give yours (or anyone else's for that matter) no credibility whatsoever. Intuition is not an arguement. I still think completeness is possible. Very simple systems are capable of very complex behavior. I don't put anything past mother nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if your assurtion about completness being possable is not based on intuition, what is it based upon?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is based on 2 choices, complete or incomplete. Either is possible.

[Piers]

Just to recap, the question is it possible for mankind or its agents to construct a theory of everything, and gain at least indirectly complete knowledge of the universe.

I said that if a theory is complicated enough to encompass everything, then it must be sufficiently sophisticated to contain the Gödel’s ‘flaw of incompleteness’. Which is really a statement on the limitations on the sort of models finite beings are able to create, i.e. if such a model is able to represent itself, then it is not cleaver enough to fully describe itself.

Quantum paradoxes aside, It appears a plausible assumption to suppose the universe itself is complete.

You are suggesting that nevertheless it is possible for mankind to create a complete model of the universe. Which given Gödel’s theorem means the model has to be surprisingly bland.

One could imagine a complete model of the universe where every distinct item in the universe is an axiom of the system and there are no rules of inference. So in effect we have a complete listing of the universe. One might even argue that the universe itself is such a model. If we were to be able to produce a model of this sort, we will have in effect produced the universe itself or an exact copy thereof!!!

Perhaps more what you are thinking of is something like the strange attractors of chaos theory. Where a few simple equations can create infinitely complex patterns with localised appearances of order. This would shift much of the problem to determining the boundary conditions.

Determining the boundary conditions is likely to resort to knowing everything about the projection of the universe onto a subspace. (So we are performing a lifting operation.)

Few straightforward equations, just find out the boundary conditions. Sounds simple enough, should not take us that long.

Sorry No, I don’t buy it. We are not going to do it. Neither is anything we create. I am willing to be as obstinate and closed minded about this as I am about the God thing.

So do you really think we might have created the universe?

[Jim T]

The problem in the question IMHO is that it ignores the likelihood that our capabilities themselves will be improved in the future.

How soon are computer enhancements going to start appearing? Things like an interface to do calculator-level math problems "in our heads" just as easily as we can currently add 2+2? Or how about being able to "remember" hundreds (or thousands, etc) of the "classics" ... or any other data you might want? How soon until a reasonable facsimile of an eidetic memory is available to everyone who wants one?

I would say that these advances in human capability will be available within a hundred years or so, and that is probably being conservative. I would also think that this is just the tip of the iceburg.

Just how human someone with these enhancements (and/or more advanced versions) will still be is debatable.

[flatline]

I considered this (actual human enhancements), but figured the question was talking about is in our current form. Maybe we will build super-intelligent machines, maybe we will somehow merge with these machines. Impossible to predict the course of events so far in the future, but I imagine it will be a combination of both.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

im not sure that intelligence alone is enough.

[TheQ]

One man, has a limited capacity for learning, and couldn't learn an unlimited amount of knowledge. (I don't think) Unless he could live forever, but would his brain fill up? However as a species, maybe we could learn an infite amount of knowledge, with an inifite amount of time, and children. But could we put it all together at once? And use it?