In a life, where all things can be imagined,can all things be known? In thinking of the answer to this question, we have to rely on the fact that the human person utilizes 10% or less of their actual brain power. In the future, were it possible for human persons to utilize near 100% of their brain power, then could all things be known? It has been shown that the thinking geniouses of the past have been using More than 10% of their brain power. Not much more, but more. Given that may be true, and given their ability to think and prove things with their limited capacity, think what they could have accomplished if they HAD been able to utilize 100% of their brain power!

So, the questions remains. Can All Things Be Known?

What say you?




B-IV

In a life, where all things can be imagined,can all things be known? In thinking of the answer to this question, we have to rely on the fact that the human person utilizes 10% or less of their actual brain power. In the future, were it possible for human persons to utilize near 100% of their brain power, then could all things be known? It has been shown that the thinking geniouses of the past have been using More than 10% of their brain power. Not much more, but more. Given that may be true, and given their ability to think and prove things with their limited capacity, think what they could have accomplished if they HAD been able to utilize 100% of their brain power!

So, the questions remains. Can All Things Be Known?

What say you?




B-IV

On what do you base your assertion that humans only use 10% of their brains?

---

BOINC WIKI

. . . don't ya jest 'ate iT when someone seyz dat (10%)

Imagination . . .

. . . In this respect it resembles the argument of the pseudo-scientists that alien astronauts have already visited the earth, but have recognised that our civilisation is too immature to handle contact with them, so naturally there is no conclusive evidence of such alien visitation. Such arguments place themselves outside the positivistic realm of traditional experimental verification. Nevertheless, one must agree that the soul-building theodicy seems plausible from a philosophical point of view. We desperately would like to believe it. But this desperate need to believe what seems intuitively plausible has been the root of much confusion and error throughout history. It causes people, reputable scientists and philosophers, to latch onto an apparent harmony and then to fight off the hidden harmony. What is there to be said? Logic fails to apply in this case, and the question is left forever open.

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

One source:

According to Carl Emil Seashore, a noted American psychologist of the 1890’s, an average man uses only about 10 % of his natural memory. Remaining 90 % is left unused in a haphazard manner. That is why generally one remains intellectually deprived or dull. If one is alert and systematically attempts to awaken and adeptly use the natural memory, the latter would be activated creatively and offer benefits of higher order.

Apparently I should have used the word memory?




B-IV

Apparently we have at least twice as much as we need :o)


Regards Hans

Edit: We're actually having a "dual core" CPU as our brain :o)

---

The Memory Exhibition at the Exploratorium

Another source:

The 10 percent statistic has been attributed to the pioneering psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910). I haven't been able to confirm that he gave a specific percentage, but he did say "we are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources" (The Energies of Men, 1908). The anthropologist Margaret Mead supposedly said we used 6 percent. Similar numbers have been mentioned by various lesser known parties. Cecil Adams.

There are others.





B-IV

I was trying to provoke thought process...as to any reply to the question; Can All Things Be Known?









B-IV

In a life, where all things can be imagined,can all things be known? In thinking of the answer to this question, we have to rely on the fact that the human person utilizes 10% or less of their actual brain power. In the future, were it possible for human persons to utilize near 100% of their brain power, then could all things be known? It has been shown that the thinking geniouses of the past have been using More than 10% of their brain power. Not much more, but more. Given that may be true, and given their ability to think and prove things with their limited capacity, think what they could have accomplished if they HAD been able to utilize 100% of their brain power!

So, the questions remains. Can All Things Be Known?

What say you?

No.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

Informally, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989). This is sometimes called Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, and answers in the negative Hilbert's problem asking whether mathematics is "complete" (in the sense that every statement in the language of number theory can be either proved or disproved). Formally, Gödel's theorem states, "To every omega-consistent recursive class kappa of formulas, there correspond recursive class-signs r such that neither (v Gen r) nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(kappa), where v is the free variable of r" (Gödel 1931).

A statement sometimes known as Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.

Gerhard Gentzen showed that the consistency and completeness of arithmetic can be proved if transfinite induction is used. However, this approach does not allow proof of the consistency of all mathematics.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

CAN ALL THINGS BE KNOWN?

It's why I'm so popular.

---

me@rescam.org

CAN ALL THINGS BE KNOWN?

It's why I'm so popular.

That's why you always get blamed.

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

CAN ALL THINGS BE KNOWN?

It's why I'm so popular.

That's why you always get blamed.

It's true!

---

me@rescam.org

Sarge, that would presume that someone, in the future, could never prove the theorem. All theory has the potential to be proven or disproven at sometime in the future. That would leave the opposite side of the question. Can some things not be known? Which, IMHO , cannot be answered until All Things Are Known...which creates a paradox.

I say, our leap into the realm of mathematics has barely crossed the threshhold.
There is math out there that has yet to be discovered. Would you say that is a fair statement?





B-IV

Here is how I view life. If something exists, there must be a proof for its existance. Given that there are things yet undiscovered, then their proofs have yet to be compiled.

If there is potential for unknown things to become known, then there is a potential answer to all questions that can be asked.







B-IV

Sarge, that would presume that someone, in the future, could never prove the theorem. All theory has the potential to be proven or disproven at sometime in the future. That would leave the opposite side of the question. Can some things not be known? Which, IMHO , cannot be answered until All Things Are Known...which creates a paradox.

I say, our leap into the realm of mathematics has barely crossed the threshhold.
There is math out there that has yet to be discovered. Would you say that is a fair statement?

Math, as with anything, is not complete. There is certainly more to be known.
I make no claims to be an expert on the particular area of mathematics that my cut and paste came from, but Gödel has proven (in the sense generally accepted by the mathematical community) that there exists within any axiomatic system a proposition that will not be able to be proved true or false. So, no, "All theory has the potential to be proven or disproven at sometime in the future" is not correct.

Perhaps getting at your concern, there are things that have stood as conjectures for hundreds of years, some proven, some disproven, others still unknown. I see there being two possibilities. Either a conjecture that has been proven or refuted was not the proposition pointed to by Gödel's incompleteness theorem or finally making a decision pushes the designation of the undecidable proposition off to some other statement. That statement may not even be currently known!

(I wonder how Chuck would respond to this one!)

EDIT: BTW, so this makes no reference to our brain power current or future. It points to the limitations of axiomatic systems and deductive proof.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You have to agree that the definition of potential exists. Goedels theorem must be flawed. Undecidable propositions must not exist. Only the current inability to decide them exists. If All Things are not yet known, then undecidable propositions must not exist. One must consider that sometime in the future, a proof for any given thing in existance has the potential to be compiled. If a thing exists, it must have a proof. Mans inability to provide proof at any given time for a particular things existance, is mans ignorance of the mechanics of the proof itself. For that reason, undecidable propositions must not exist. Undiscovered answers exist. My proof is that knowledge that was unknown yesterday, is known today. Someone, somewhere, will uncover knowledge that is unknown,tommorrow. Tommorrow meaning anytime > now.





B-IV

And someone , somewhere, can be any senciant being, in the known universe.









B-IV

You have to agree that the definition of potential exists. Goedels theorem must be flawed. Undecidable propositions must not exist. Only the current inability to decide them exists. If All Things are not yet known, then undecidable propositions must not exist. One must consider that sometime in the future, a proof for any given thing in existance has the potential to be compiled. If a thing exists, it must have a proof. Mans inability to provide proof at any given time for a particular things existance, is mans ignorance of the mechanics of the proof itself. For that reason, undecidable propositions must not exist. Undiscovered answers exist. My proof is that knowledge that was unknown yesterday, is known today. Someone, somewhere, will uncover knowledge that is unknown,tommorrow. Tommorrow meaning anytime > now.

As I said, Gödel's theorem is not in contradiction with growth/potential.
This discussion is similar to the one I have been having with Chuck in the religious thread.
Interesting how it was around the same time that Gödel worked that physicists found on the atomic level observation effects outcomes.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Mans inability to provide proof at any given time for a particular things existance, is mans ignorance of the mechanics of the proof itself.

Yes, there are misunderstandings regarding proof, as I have been discussing over in the religious thread. Simply put, it rests on a small set of assumptions. Proof within axiomatic systems using the laws of deductive logic was developed by philosophers a little over 2000 years ago in response to their Sophist peers who would play the devil's advocate or go around in circles. Also, simply put, this approach has its limitations. Limitations are not the same as flaws. Thus, the misunderstandings are on what proof is, that deductive proof is perfect and that at some point in time we will know everything. It is far more likely that there will always be something to explore (so do not worry about your jobs, researchers) and that scientific theories will be modified or replaced with theories that provide for better explanations/predictions than current theories.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

In a life, where all things can be imagined,can all things be known? In thinking of the answer to this question, we have to rely on the fact that the human person utilizes 10% or less of their actual brain power. In the future, were it possible for human persons to utilize near 100% of their brain power, then could all things be known? It has been shown that the thinking geniouses of the past have been using More than 10% of their brain power. Not much more, but more. Given that may be true, and given their ability to think and prove things with their limited capacity, think what they could have accomplished if they HAD been able to utilize 100% of their brain power!

So, the questions remains. Can All Things Be Known?

What say you?




B-IV

that is easy to work out and you dont need to be a brainbox to do it.

no not all things can be known, why? do the maths, one person used 10% right, so 10 people use 100% as a group, equal to 100% of one person. with 8 billion people on this plannet, and still, we dont know everything, but use the brain to fight and kill people, now with that level of intelligence, do you really think we could ever know everything there is to know?

i bet even the cavemen had more intelligence than we do today. on second thoughts, i have seen a few already today, ignore that last statement, i'll lose the bet, because the guys i seen today are on equal footing with cavemen.

---

I AM NOT FAT! I AM BIG-BONED!