Proof of UN-God-Ability.
Proof of UN-God-Ability using ...
Bounded Rationality and Inductive Bias
----------------------------------------
Theorem of Un-God-Ability
-
Statement1: There is nobody who knows everything. (Quite obvious right, lets prove it !)
Corollary 1: Nobody is always correct.
Corollary 2: No body knows the solutions to everything.
Corollary 3: Roy cannot know everything !
...
Background (The know facts to mankind-Grab any book on Computational Learning theory)
Representing the entire hypothesis space doesn't allow you to generalize beyond experience. Its the inductive bias in representation of the hypothesis space which makes decision possible because it limits the search of the hypothesis space.
And its the bound that lets you generalize the things beyond the bound (with some rationality of course). This limit is the just one of the BOUNDS of a persons bounded rationality. There is no reason or way to learn these bounds because you always know them before hand.
Increasing the bound can lead to chaos, making decision making longer and never ending. Because now you will consider more and more hypothesis for reaching decisions and try to put in rationality where is not quite important.
Does Increasing the bounds of rationality results in better decisions ?
-YES for you and others who have a richer representation of the hypothesis space that lead to your decision.
-NO for others who have a weaker representation and whose bounds classify your decision in a contradictory sense.
-Agnostic: People have bounds which cannot help then decide/understand your decision
Statement1: There is nobody who knows everything. (Quite obvious right, lets prove it !)
Corollary 1: Nobody is always correct.
Corollary 2: No body knows the solutions to everything.
Corollary 3: Roy cannot know everything !
Because ....
To learn everything you atleast have to forget the process of learning. (So the contradiction and so the UN-GOD-Ability)
-- Faraz (This is my theorem and my proofs)
PROOF1:
1. Knowing everything and asserting that same fact that you know every single thing MEANS you have an complete understanding of hypothesis space.
.i.e
Knowing everything = Knowing the entire hypothesis space = NO BOUNDS ON RATIONALITY ......(1)
2. Ok now the contradiction !!!
Well you to know everything you have, stop knowing the bounds of your rationality.
Hence proved .. :)
To learn everything you have to at least forget/(not know) the bounds of your rationality.
Critique Proof 1. (I like to do away with really dumb ones)
You can pounce on the proof saying you Can have knowledge of your bound, and say that the bound is "infinitely large".
But then I can pose a very simple counter proposition that
"The one who knows everything should know the bounds of infinity"? and the ask him to answer the question
"How much is infinity"?.
The one who knows everything may answer. Infinity is something that cannot be measured. Well you have to give into the fact that you atleast don't know 1 thing that being how to measure infinity?
PROOF2:
The layman's version even a toddler will understand this version of the proof.
1. Lets take the fact that I know the process of "How to learn new things" i.e Faraz knows how to learn from experience. (quite untrue but lets assume)
2. Given faraz now claims to know everything ? Can he claim to learn anything ? (No!, because you cannot learning anything that is already know to you).
3. So by knowing everything faraz has at least given up the knowledge of "How to learn".
Critiques for proof2:
Well I know I know u can say that "There is nothing to learn !! and that is what Faraz has learned". Quite a fact but the statement that "There is nothing to learn" is not quite the same as the statement "Everything has been learned".
i.e
"There is nothing to learn" != "Everything has been learned"
And given anyone 1 statement nothing can be said about the other.
Given:"There is nothing to learn"
Can you answer: "Has Everything has been learned"? Y/N
Given: "Everything has been learned"
Can you answer: "Is There nothing left to be learned"?
Yes, Sure affirming that you just learned everything there is just nothing to be learned at all. (Step 1gazillion)
No, Because you just learned our answer is "Yes" after you asserted that "Everything has been learned" :D
-PS.
Not a atheist.
If it was not for GOD, I wouldn't have thought of proofs about his existence/non-existance. (Iam making a statement and a proof here which i don't want anybody to understand). As bounded rationality says "Let talk about the stars and lets not discuss who can be god and who cannot !". I know a few people who will get what i mean, without me having to express it explicitly.
Bounded Rationality and Inductive Bias
----------------------------------------
Theorem of Un-God-Ability
-
Statement1: There is nobody who knows everything. (Quite obvious right, lets prove it !)
Corollary 1: Nobody is always correct.
Corollary 2: No body knows the solutions to everything.
Corollary 3: Roy cannot know everything !
...
Background (The know facts to mankind-Grab any book on Computational Learning theory)
Representing the entire hypothesis space doesn't allow you to generalize beyond experience. Its the inductive bias in representation of the hypothesis space which makes decision possible because it limits the search of the hypothesis space.
And its the bound that lets you generalize the things beyond the bound (with some rationality of course). This limit is the just one of the BOUNDS of a persons bounded rationality. There is no reason or way to learn these bounds because you always know them before hand.
Increasing the bound can lead to chaos, making decision making longer and never ending. Because now you will consider more and more hypothesis for reaching decisions and try to put in rationality where is not quite important.
Does Increasing the bounds of rationality results in better decisions ?
-YES for you and others who have a richer representation of the hypothesis space that lead to your decision.
-NO for others who have a weaker representation and whose bounds classify your decision in a contradictory sense.
-Agnostic: People have bounds which cannot help then decide/understand your decision
- Theorem of Un-God-Ability
Statement1: There is nobody who knows everything. (Quite obvious right, lets prove it !)
Corollary 1: Nobody is always correct.
Corollary 2: No body knows the solutions to everything.
Corollary 3: Roy cannot know everything !
Because ....
To learn everything you atleast have to forget the process of learning. (So the contradiction and so the UN-GOD-Ability)
-- Faraz (This is my theorem and my proofs)
- Prove
PROOF1:
1. Knowing everything and asserting that same fact that you know every single thing MEANS you have an complete understanding of hypothesis space.
.i.e
Knowing everything = Knowing the entire hypothesis space = NO BOUNDS ON RATIONALITY ......(1)
2. Ok now the contradiction !!!
Well you to know everything you have, stop knowing the bounds of your rationality.
Hence proved .. :)
To learn everything you have to at least forget/(not know) the bounds of your rationality.
Critique Proof 1. (I like to do away with really dumb ones)
You can pounce on the proof saying you Can have knowledge of your bound, and say that the bound is "infinitely large".
But then I can pose a very simple counter proposition that
"The one who knows everything should know the bounds of infinity"? and the ask him to answer the question
"How much is infinity"?.
The one who knows everything may answer. Infinity is something that cannot be measured. Well you have to give into the fact that you atleast don't know 1 thing that being how to measure infinity?
PROOF2:
The layman's version even a toddler will understand this version of the proof.
1. Lets take the fact that I know the process of "How to learn new things" i.e Faraz knows how to learn from experience. (quite untrue but lets assume)
2. Given faraz now claims to know everything ? Can he claim to learn anything ? (No!, because you cannot learning anything that is already know to you).
3. So by knowing everything faraz has at least given up the knowledge of "How to learn".
Critiques for proof2:
Well I know I know u can say that "There is nothing to learn !! and that is what Faraz has learned". Quite a fact but the statement that "There is nothing to learn" is not quite the same as the statement "Everything has been learned".
i.e
"There is nothing to learn" != "Everything has been learned"
And given anyone 1 statement nothing can be said about the other.
Given:"There is nothing to learn"
Can you answer: "Has Everything has been learned"? Y/N
Given: "Everything has been learned"
Can you answer: "Is There nothing left to be learned"?
Yes, Sure affirming that you just learned everything there is just nothing to be learned at all. (Step 1gazillion)
No, Because you just learned our answer is "Yes" after you asserted that "Everything has been learned" :D
-PS.
Not a atheist.
If it was not for GOD, I wouldn't have thought of proofs about his existence/non-existance. (Iam making a statement and a proof here which i don't want anybody to understand). As bounded rationality says "Let talk about the stars and lets not discuss who can be god and who cannot !". I know a few people who will get what i mean, without me having to express it explicitly.
posted by Faraz Ahmed Shaikh | 1:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home