Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[Skepdick]

So the above sentence is NOT the message. I've received nothing more from you than the above.

It is a representation of the message.

If this is a representation, where's the message?

You can only communicate a representation of the message.

If this is a representation, where's the message?

Every translation of it. In Greek: ισομορφισμός. You can translate it into Greek, make it plural in Greek, and then translate it back into English. You will end up with "isomorphisms".

If this is an isomorphism of the message, where's the message?

You may turn it into voice file, pluralize it while in the voice format, and from there get it back as a plural in writing too.

If all of the above are isomorphisms of the message, where's the message?

It almost surely has a representation in the mind too, but that representation is unknown.

I'm not asking you where the representations are. I am asking you where the message is.

As voice waves by pronouncing the message.

That's a phonetic representation of the message. Where is the message?

In Hindi or Arabic. And so on. You can use Cyrillic and send the word "isomorphism" in Russian as "изоморфизм" or in Bulgarian as "изоморфизъм". These are other symbols. It is still the same message.

Това са само репрезентации на съобщението. Къде е съобщението?

Messages cannot control the number of their representations.

But you can control where the message is, surely?

Where is it?

[godelian]

If this is a representation, where's the message?

Das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekanntes.

[Skepdick]

It is a Platonic abstraction.

I didn't ask what it is. I asked where it is.

If the above is only a representation of the message - where is the Platonically abstract message?

You can only view its many representations.

So if all I can view is the representation, how am I receiving your messages?

You cannot see the thing by itself.

So how are you getting the content of your message across if the above is nothing more than a representation of the content?

For mathematical objects, you can use arithmetic theory as a view, and then some part of their universe will show up as numbers. If you use set theory, the same things will show up as sets. There are probably other views that you can use.

I am talking about a specific kind of object: messages.

[Skepdick]

If this is a representation, where's the message?

Das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekanntes.

How do you know it's unknown?

How can you possibly represent an unknown?

[godelian]

How do you know it's unknown?

The map is not the territory. If it were, it would be unique.

How can you possibly represent an unknown?

You have a representation in your mind. Then, you represent that as symbols. Then, as a signal on a network. Then, as magnetized disk sectors, and so on. You always have at least one of its representations. You also know how to convert that to another representation.

[godelian]

So how are you getting the content of your message across if the above is nothing more than a representation of the content?

The content is just another representation, i.e. a mental one. Instead of magnetized disk sectors, it is probably something like activated neurons, or whatever. The details of the mental representation are unknown.

[Skepdick]

The map is not the territory. If it were, it would be unique.

Type error.

I did't ask you a "What is/isn't it?" question.
I asked you a "Where is it?" question.

Where is the message?

You have a representation in your mind. Then, you represent that as symbols. Then, as a signal on a network. Then, as magnetized disk sectors, and so on. You always have at least one of its representations. You also know how to convert that to another representation.

Sounds like representations all the way down.

Where is the message?

[Skepdick]

So how are you getting the content of your message across if the above is nothing more than a representation of the content?

The content is just another representation, i.e. a mental one. Instead of magnetized disk sectors, it is probably something like activated neurons, or whatever. The details of the mental representation are unknown.

So how are you encoding/representing an unknown message into English?

You don't know what the message is.
You don't know where the message is.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

[godelian]

Sounds like representations all the way down.
Where is the message?

That is exactly how it works. The representation is not the message. We don't know the message itself. We only know some of its representations.

Similarly:

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecuri ... encryption

Homomorphic encryption is the conversion of data into ciphertext that can be analyzed and worked with as if it were still in its original form. Homomorphic encryption enables complex mathematical operations to be performed on encrypted data without compromising the encryption.

In homomorphic encryption, we can convert the ciphertext to another cyphertext and so on, without ever knowing the plaintext.

Similarly, we don't know the equivalent of the "plaintext" of a message. We only keep converting and moving around the one or the other version of its "ciphertext", i.e. one of its representations.

[godelian]

So how are you encoding/representing an unknown message into English?

It gets encoded into English from its mental representation.

[Skepdick]

That is exactly how it works.

No, it isn't.

The representation is not the message.

Type error. Again.

I didn't ask you WHAT the message being represented is.
I asked you WHERE the message being represented is.

We don't know the message itself. We only know some of its representations.

We? You and all the voices in your head? If you don't know what the message is; or where the message is do any of you even know what it is you are talking about?

Similarly:

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecuri ... encryption

Absolutely nothing like it. You don't even know what it is that you are encrypting. You don't even know where the data being encrypted is; or what the data is.

So how are you encrypting it?

Similarly, we don't know the equivalent of the "plaintext" of a message. We only keep converting and moving around the one or the other version of its "ciphertext", i.e. one of its representations.

False equivalence. In homomorphic encryption scenarios there's at least one party which has the decryption keys and can extract either the original message; or transformations thereof.

[godelian]

Absolutely nothing like it. You don't even know what it is that you are encrypting. You don't even know where it is.
So how are you encrypting it?

That happens in the brain. It is not known how.

False equivalence. In homomorphic encryption scenarios there's at least one party which has the decryption keys and can extract either the original message; or transformations thereof.

In a zero-knowledge argument of knowledge, neither the prover nor the verifier can decrypt the entire message. In fact, nobody can. There is no need for the entire original message. Only some parts are readable to the prover, while the verifier can only see that the message is legitimate.

[Skepdick]

Absolutely nothing like it. You don't even know what it is that you are encrypting. You don't even know where it is.
So how are you encrypting it?

That happens in the brain. It is not known how.

Type error. Again.

Why do you keep confusing whys, whats, wheres and hows?

The data owner knows EXACTLY what it is that they are encrypting and where it is.
The unencrypted data is with the owner.
The encrypted data is with the entity performing the computation.

In a zero-knowledge argument of knowledge, neither the prover nor the verifier can decrypt the entire message. In fact, nobody can. There is no need for the entire original message. Only some parts are readable to the prover, while the verifier can only see that the message is legitimate.

In zero-knowledge arguments only one side has zero knowledge. The side that expects the proof. The side doing the proving has non-zero knowledge.

I have zero knowledge of the location of the message, so I keep asking you WHERE is it?

You have non-zero knowledge of the message's location. Why can't you prove to me you know where it is?

And if you can't prove to me you know where the message is; or what the message is. Why should I conclude anything other than: You have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

[godelian]

In zero-knowledge arguments only one side has zero knowledge. The side that expects the proof. The side doing the proving has non-zero knowledge.

Look at how the zcash protocol works. The prover has no clue as to where the money comes from. He knows the amount and where it goes to. The largest part of the message is encrypted even for the prover. He intergrates something that he does not understand into what he is writing.

So, a good part of what the prover writes is also unintelligible to him.

[Skepdick]

Look at how the zcash protocol works. The prover has no clue as to where the money comes from. He knows the amount and where it goes to. The largest part of the message is encrypted even for the prover. He intergrates something that he does not understand into what he is writing.

So, a good part of what the prover writes is also unintelligible to him.

Once again. You have no idea what you are talking about. When you unwrap all the onion layers something moves from A to B.

Is the money still with the sender; or is it now with the recipient? Has the transaction completed or not?

You can't even tell me WHERE the message/money is.

Unless you want to convince me that zcash does double-entries without reconciling them.