> On Aug 26, 2:09 am, Errol gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> I read an interesting short story about the tower of Babylon by writer
>> Ted Chiang, in which humanity tries to break through the vault
>> separating earth from heaven. They build a tower miles high. After
>> they break through several hundred feet of stone, one of the
>> protagonists manages to scuttle upwards through the collapsing
>> tunnels, avoid the water pouring downward and crawls up to heaven.
>> After recuperating from his injuries, our hero discovers he is back on
>> earth and has simply crawled out of a hole in the ground near the base
>> of the tower.

>

>> Is this not a metaphor for the scientific effort of today where almost
>> every aspect of the universe and consciousness seems to have a
>> dualistic aspect, whereby everything seems to have either a
>> commonplace or a mystical interpretation? Consciousness collapsing the
>> probability wave and allowing matter to manifest itself or matter
>> simply allowing consciousness to develop, universe versus multiverse,
>> quantum computing or not, holographic universe projected onto our
>> consciousness from higher dimensions, or plain vanilla universe with
>> no extra dimensions, the enigma of AI (could it ever really reach the
>> same level of consciousness as mankind?)

>

>> The point is if a creator wanted to create an almost unfathomable
>> universe which would defy the best efforts of humanity to break its
>> secrets, then this particular universe seems to be a very good design.
>> Will the new, European, large particle collider simply find new
>> additional layers of structure which will require even larger amounts
>> of energy to explore? If consciousness is part of the structure of the
>> universe, could it even be theoretically possible for AIs to develop
>> it?

>

>> I suppose it all depends on the individual’s interpretation and degree
>> of materialism.

>
> New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems will
> never be explained or at the least cannot be explained by the human
> mind at its current evolutionary stage.
>
> New Mysterianism is often characterized as a presupposition that some
> problems cannot be solved. Critics of this view argue that it is
> arrogant to assume that a problem cannot be solved just because we
> haven't solved it yet. On the other hand, New Mysterians would say
> that it's just as absurd to assume that every problem can be solved.
> Crucially, New Mysterians would argue that they did not start with any
> supposition as to the solvability of the question, and instead reached
> their conclusion through logical reasoning.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mysterianism
>
> Its to complex so lets just forget about it and bank on the
> forgetfulness? Sounds like the recipe for a new middle ages, good
> thing thats gettin elected out of office.