I am not a native English speaker so probably I will make grammar mistakes, I am sorry for that . If there is no god we are probably a result of natural selection, so after some hundreds thousands of years human will be extremely more intelligent comparing to us, or lets us just suppose there are some intelligent beings somewhere in the universe or in a parallel universe.., live in more than 4 dimensions for example, their senses are very strong and more than 5, so they can detect signals that we can not detect ...alien Their intelligent equal 100 times our intelligent, so of course their understanding of the world should be different from us, and better .. , our mathematics and logic must be just a particular case of their logic...,or maybe craziness for them !! By a Mathematical induction : * A non-living matter has no intelligent so it understand nothing about its existence and the world . * A human being in 2016 his intelligence quotient is x so his understanding of the world is y. * A human being in 9999 his intelligence quotient is x+dx so his understanding of the world is y+dy. * An alien his intelligence quotient is x+X so his understanding of the world is y+Y. * A being his intelligence quotient is infinite, his understanding of the world is infinite (he know all the reality). So our understanding of the universe should be proportional to our intelligent . Our intelligence is limited so we understand 1/infinity = 0 (we understand almost nothing). Who understand totally the world is who have an infinite intelligent and this is nothing but G O D !!
The good conceptual point you made is the possibility that the laws and mathematics could just be like a grain of sand in the larger reality though to us that is all we know to use to reason and understand. So we probably will never understand or know beyond our own bubble because its impossible limited by our makeup as in our senses and distance beyond.
That's a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not necessarily going to lead to greater intelligence. Also I disagree that a non-living entity cannot possibly be intelligent.
Only matter that has not been organized into any functional resemblance to living, intelligent life can be quasi-safely or cautiously dismissed as lacking sapient activity. Open-ended progress isn't an inbuilt predilection or agenda of non-artificial intelligence. "Understanding" doesn't entail a vast inventory of all specifics and particulars, but can be general conceptual knowledge of the universe in terms of what it is, what it was, what it will be, and what can / cannot be possible in regard to it. An exhaustive catalog / library of all its contents and their relationships throughout past, present, and future would be equivalent to a four-dimensional simulation of the cosmos as much as a holding of factual information. Given the additional dynamic structure required for something to be such a total representation of or container of retrievable data about the universe, that "detailed, omniscient knowledge" would accordingly have to exceed the capacity of the cosmos itself. Whereas in contrast, the mere "understanding" of the universe in terms of abstract formulations is much more compact and within the grasp of humans. For instance: Imagine an algorithm generating a similar but still mutable endless output converted to a pattern expressed on a grid of geometrical and temporal coordinates. Whatever you desire to know about the specific contents in a location of the "infinite" pattern is simply spat out on demand by the succinct underlying scheme of the process, on a computer monitor. In this respect, the whole of a complex domain has been reduced to a much simpler algorithm or system of repeating routines: The countless fine particulars and variations of the domain have been subsumed under perhaps the most "general understanding" of it possible.
Yeah, I think I'd like an example of that too. (Although, I suppose a god does not fit the strict definition of life.)
Maybe. I'm not sure what logic's ontological status is. We might say that any intelligence that evolved the ability to think logically through natural selection, will possess a logic that reflects the logic seemingly inherent in how the universe behaves and hence will be isomorphic with ours. The super-intelligent aliens may have a more developed logic than we do, applicable to more kinds of situations than ours, but it would arguably be what we would describe as an extension of our own. It probably won't contradict our logic too dramatically in its more basic aspects. In other words our logic can probably be modeled within their logic as a special case. I don't agree. I don't think that knowledge is only a function of intelligence. It's also a function of access to information. What you seem to be describing is an omniscient being. That certainly corresponds to one of the more philosophical attributes commonly attributed to God. While it's a nice science-fictionish speculation, there's no reason to believe that such a being exists in reality. Nor is there any reason to equate it with any of the deities of the world's theistic religions.
Sentient robots. Any sort of AI. It probably needn't be artificial. It's possible to imagine the existence of all sorts of data processors appearing naturally out there in the universe that aren't instantiated in organic life. Maybe in crystals or something like that.
From Amansour Post #1 The evolution of more intelligent Homo Sapiens descendants or some other more intelligent species is unwarranted speculation. The current level of Homo Sapiens intelligence provides significant control of our ability to survive as a species. If anything, our current culture & level of technology seem to insure the survival of those with less than average health & intelligence: There is little (if any) evolutionary pressure toward a higher level of intelligence & more than 5 senses, I would expect the above to apply to other intelligent cultures. The notion of entities living in more than 3 spacial dimensions is speculation & very likely to be an erroneous concept. BTW: Working with the mathematics of & thinking about 4D & higher dimensional spaces is a fun activity. There are interesting concepts to consider & apparent paradoxes to be resolved. Some examples are as follows. Consider a hyper-cube with a one foot edge. Measured in feet, its volume is one. Measured in inches, its volume grows without bound as the number of dimensions increase. Measured in yards, its volume approaches zero as the number of dimensions increase. Consider a hyper-cube with a one foot edge & an inscribed hyper-sphere & hyper-spheres in the corners. There are diagonals whose length is the square root of the number of dimensions. In 441 dimensions. The longest diagonal is 21. The inscribed hyper-sphere touches all the faces, but only one unit of the 21 unit diagonal is inside the hyper-sphere. The hyper-spheres in the corners are far larger than the inscribed hyper-sphere. Google can provide formulae for the volume & surface area of hyper-spheres. In every dimension, the surface area is the derivative of the volume.
