Can all experiences be digitized?

[hallenrm]

Here is a quote from a recent post in the thread The problem with science by Doctordick

 

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Mark the word number, (I have intentionally highlighted it) Do you mean that all observations and experiences can be digitized?

 

Originally Posted by Doctordick Not exactly, I mean that any reference to anything can be digitized.

 

The reply by Doctordick is confusing, especially in the context of the contents of his earlier thread A theory of explanations. The theory as I understand is mathematical and claims to encompass all science. If such is the case then it follows that all input data is numerical. Which means that all observations that are processed by the theory can be in fact in the form of numbers.

 

Doctordick says that any reference to anything can be digitized what does he really mean? Is he saying that only the references to the observations need to be processed?

 

So far my understanding of science goes it is indeed impossible to digitize all the experiences of humanity.

 

Any help?

[CraigD]

So far my understanding of science goes it is indeed impossible to digitize all the experiences of humanity.

I agree.

 

I’ve not kept up with the details of 8340, but as a standalone question, I believe “is it possible to digitize all the experiences of humanity” has several possible meanings.

 

A tractable one is: “is it possible to uniquely number all statements a human being can make?” I believe the existence of algorithms such as Gödel numbering prove by example that the answer to this question is “yes”. Even the definition of “make a statement” is stretched to include things other than asserting theorems in a formal language, to include such things as handwriting, painting, and performance art, if we accept that a sufficiently high-fidelity recording (eg: 3-d immersive) is equivalent to actually experiencing the “statement making”, then every statement can be numbered.

 

A more difficult one is: “can every state that contributes to an experience of humanity be numbered?”. “State” includes the physical/dynamic state of the brain and possibly other body tissues, and possibly the immediate environment impacting one’s senses. This question runs afoul issues of knowability and the uncertainty principle, and is roughly equivalent to the question of strong AI, which can be rephrased as “must a representation of a human mind be exact, or just sufficiently accurate, for the representation to have all the attributes of the mind?”

 

My personal take on the latter question is “yes”, but science is far from a workable “theory of mind” that permits it to be answered with reasonable certainty.

[hallenrm]

Thanks CraigD! Your post really opened new avenues of thought for me:)

 

What I had in mind while posting this thread were experiences which can often can't even be articulated because of the limitation of languages, or observations which are in areas that have not been properly explored by any scientist, that is those that belong to the yet to be explored territory of human knowledge.

 

I really hope what I am trying to communicate is reaching its targets!

[Qfwfq]

Well, actually, it is possible to give a numerical representation of things and all kinds of events are recorded. I disagree about Heisenberg's principle making it inpossible, simply because the very fact that one says 'experience' means that it's an outcome. Even when you get down to the microscopic and want great resolution, what we mean by experience is what we observe and therefore (by definition) cannot be against that principle.

 

IMV it's a simple matter of how much data is necessary to record a given experience with a given resolution.