Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Rice’s Theorem doesn’t apply to this situation the way you think it does. The theorem pertains to the undecidability of certain properties of programs and algorithms, which is a computational and mathematical constraint, not a physical one. It doesn’t imply that deterministic systems—whether computers or physical entities—behave unpredictably given identical initial conditions.

Rice theorem certainly applies.

The behavior of these computers is to figure out what you are predicting about them with the purpose of making your prediction fail.

If two computers are truly identical—hardware, software, inputs, and environment—and there are no random quantum effects or external perturbations, their behavior will align perfectly because they operate under deterministic rules.

No, because their behavior depends on your behavior.

If you predict that they will run forever, they will halt instead. If you predict that they halt, they will run forever instead.

They predict about you what you are going to predict about them with the purpose of making your prediction fail

The proof for Alan Turing's Halting problem and for Rice Theorem work exactly like that.

The first computer will only behave identically to the second computer if you predict that they will do exactly the same things. If you predict that they will do different things, they will behave differently.

Godelian, this is utter nonsense. Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to abstract computational systems, not physical deterministic systems like computers or the universe. You’re conflating mathematical undecidability with physical causation, which is a category error.

Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules. If two computers are identical in hardware, software, inputs, and environment, they cannot behave differently unless you introduce non-identical conditions. Your fantasy of computers acting "to make your prediction fail" is pure fiction with no basis in physics, causation, or reality.

Stop throwing irrelevant computational theory into a discussion about determinism unless you can show how it magically applies to physical systems. Otherwise, this is just a waste of everyone’s time.

[godelian]

Godelian, this is utter nonsense. Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to abstract computational systems, not physical deterministic systems like computers or the universe.

Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to computer programs of which millions, if not billions, are nowadays running inside our universe.

Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.

The fixed rule that the deterministic systems follow in the Halting Problem is exactly the one that allows one of them to defy predictions.

There are two programs:

(1) Oracle: a program that tries to predict if other programs will halt or run forever.
(2) Pathological: a program that seeks to defy the predictions that Oracle makes about him.

ChatGPT: Proof of the halting problem

Proof by Contradiction

Assumption:
Assume Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput) is a program that solves the Halting Problem.

Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput)=True: arbitraryProgram(arbitraryInput) halts.
Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput)=False: arbitraryProgram(arbitraryInput) runs forever.

Construct a New Program Pathological:

Using Oracle, define a new program Pathological(arbitraryProgram) that takes a program arbitraryProgram as input and does the following:

If Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram)=True (i.e., arbitraryProgram(arbitraryProgram) halts), then Pathological(arbitraryProgram) runs forever.
If Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram)=False (i.e., arbitraryProgram(arbitraryProgram) runs forever), then Pathological(arbitraryProgram) halts.

In pseudocode:

Code: Select all

def Pathological(arbitraryProgram):
        if Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram):  # Does arbitraryProgram halt when run with itself as input?
            while True:  # Run forever
                pass
        else:
            return 0  # Halt

Self-Referencing:
Now, ask: What happens when Pathological is given itself as input?
Pathological(Pathological): Does Pathological halt when run with itself as input?

Contradiction:
If Oracle(Pathological,Pathological)=True, then Pathological(Pathological) is designed to run forever.
(Contradiction: Oracle predicted it halts.)

If Oracle(Pathological,Pathological)=False, then Pathological(Pathological) halts.
(Contradiction: Oracle predicted it runs forever.)

In both cases, Oracle gives the wrong answer, contradicting our assumption that Oracle is a perfect Halting Decider.

Conclusion
Since assuming the existence of Oracle leads to a contradiction, Oracle cannot exist. Therefore, the Halting Problem is unsolvable.

I have replaced the one-letter symbols such as P,Q,H in the original proof by "Oracle", "Pathological", and so on.

By writing "Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.", you are conceding your total ignorance of how malware works. Malware are programs that follow fixed rules (specified in software) to steal billions of dollars every year. They do this by defeating the predictions by other programs or by human users. They are meant to purposely mislead their counterparts.

[Skepdick]

Godelian, this is utter nonsense. Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to abstract computational systems, not physical deterministic systems like computers or the universe. You’re conflating mathematical undecidability with physical causation, which is a category error.

Well, that's a plot twist...

All the laws of physics; and the conservation laws you were peddling stem from Noether's theorem. Weren't you selling determinism under the guise of physics laws?

Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.

What? Like computational systems? Like the ones in which Rice's theorem applies.

Stop throwing irrelevant computational theory into a discussion about determinism unless you can show how it magically applies to physical systems.

Mathematics, bozo. Equational reasoning is computational.

Starting with the most basic of determinations: where two entities are equal or not.

[BigMike]

Godelian, this is utter nonsense. Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to abstract computational systems, not physical deterministic systems like computers or the universe.

Rice's Theorem and the Halting Problem apply to computer programs of which millions, if not billions, are nowadays running inside our universe.

Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.

The fixed rule that the deterministic systems follow in the Halting Problem is exactly the one that allows one of them to defy predictions.

There are two programs:

(1) Oracle: a program that tries to predict if other programs will halt or run forever.
(2) Pathological: a program that seeks to defy the predictions that Oracle makes about him.

ChatGPT: Proof of the halting problem

Proof by Contradiction

Assumption:
Assume Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput) is a program that solves the Halting Problem.

Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput)=True: arbitraryProgram(arbitraryInput) halts.
Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryInput)=False: arbitraryProgram(arbitraryInput) runs forever.

Construct a New Program Pathological:

Using Oracle, define a new program Pathological(arbitraryProgram) that takes a program arbitraryProgram as input and does the following:

If Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram)=True (i.e., arbitraryProgram(arbitraryProgram) halts), then Pathological(arbitraryProgram) runs forever.
If Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram)=False (i.e., arbitraryProgram(arbitraryProgram) runs forever), then Pathological(arbitraryProgram) halts.

In pseudocode:

Code: Select all

def Pathological(arbitraryProgram):
        if Oracle(arbitraryProgram,arbitraryProgram):  # Does arbitraryProgram halt when run with itself as input?
            while True:  # Run forever
                pass
        else:
            return 0  # Halt

Self-Referencing:
Now, ask: What happens when Pathological is given itself as input?
Pathological(Pathological): Does Pathological halt when run with itself as input?

Contradiction:
If Oracle(Pathological,Pathological)=True, then Pathological(Pathological) is designed to run forever.
(Contradiction: Oracle predicted it halts.)

If Oracle(Pathological,Pathological)=False, then Pathological(Pathological) halts.
(Contradiction: Oracle predicted it runs forever.)

In both cases, Oracle gives the wrong answer, contradicting our assumption that Oracle is a perfect Halting Decider.

Conclusion
Since assuming the existence of Oracle leads to a contradiction, Oracle cannot exist. Therefore, the Halting Problem is unsolvable.

I have replaced the one-letter symbols such as P,Q,H in the original proof by "Oracle", "Pathological", and so on.

By writing "Deterministic systems don’t "figure out" how to defy predictions—they follow fixed rules.", you are conceding your total ignorance of how malware works. Malware are programs that follow fixed rules (specified in software) to steal billions of dollars every year. They do this by defeating the predictions by other programs or by human users. They are meant to purposely mislead their counterparts.

Godelian, this is sheer nonsense. The Halting Problem and Rice’s Theorem deal with theoretical limits of computation, not the physical behavior of deterministic systems. Malware and software aren’t "defying predictions"; they’re exploiting vulnerabilities and following programmed instructions. There’s no magic or contradiction here—just a failure on your part to differentiate between mathematical abstractions and physical causality. Stop conflating computational theory with physical determinism—it’s a category error that’s wasting everyone’s time.

[Skepdick]

The Halting Problem and Rice’s Theorem deal with theoretical limits of computation, not the physical behavior of deterministic systems.

Distinction without a difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

If physical systems are deterministic, they must "compute" their next state based on their current state - in computational terms this is known as the state-transition function. The Bekenstein bound tells us that any physical region has a finite information capacity therefore, any physical deterministic system is, in fact, a finite computational system.

Tell me more about your motivated reasoning. You really seem desperate to have your cake and eat it too.

[godelian]

Godelian, this is sheer nonsense. The Halting Problem and Rice’s Theorem deal with theoretical limits of computation, not the physical behavior of deterministic systems.

Do you understand Alan Turing's Halting Problem? Do you understand its proof? I have explained it as simply as possible to you. Do you actually understand what the two programs, Oracle and Pathological, are doing?

Do you actually know what you are talking about?

You see, Prover can provide Verifier with a proof but that is utterly pointless if Verifier simply does not understand the proof.

What you have argued is not just wrong. It is utterly incompetent.

[BigMike]

Your application has been duly approved.

[attofishpi]

Your application has been duly approved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7h_lGgUtE

[Alexis Jacobi]

A few notes which, I think, are useful to a holistic understanding of the physico-chemical *philosophy* presented by BigMike. My assertion is that what he brings up, even if he is not aware of it, can be considered "vital to the time we are in". I also want to express here that I am upping my offer to him to US$8,000 if he agrees to take me off of ignore! ["Your application has been duly approved."]

BigMike is, as I understand it, repeating in 21st century lingo the basic Hobbesian position. On one hand he favors an absolutist chemico-materialist outlook by referring to "what science has determined to be true", and on the other he alludes to what he supposes may be or could be a Leviathan state. I.e. an authority, based in science-principles, that would be capable of ordering (reordering) man's relationship with concrete *reality*. In fact, with these predicates (those that have captured BigMike) there is really no other alternative. An absolutist perspective demands an absolute solution. So, I have to point out that his *philosophy* dovetails with a political and social outlook as indeed it must. The reference to Skinner was not a vain one.

Here is the curious thing about BigMike's Weltanschauung: It is a doctrinal position, and one deeply committed to an ideology, which is 'felt to be factual' but which is, when examined from a distance, profoundly metaphysical. But here's the deal: What I think BigMike shows is how our deepest convictions, and what we really & truly believe to be true, takes shape in us, and influences us to see the world through those lenses, less as a result of conscious, rational processes and more in the sense of taking what is felt to be true as true and as truth itself. BigMike, therefore, might be seen clearly as (simply) a man who has marinated himself in a type of intellectual (scientistic) factionalism.

I suggest examination of

His prose style. The shame and ridicule expressed in each retort. The clear sense that his purpose is suasion. That every post is laced with declarations of zealous certainty. That his convictions have a missionizing purpose. That at every turn he makes reference to an Absolute Authority which, he says, now lays down the real and true facts about Existence. That those 'facts' that BigMike refers to actually overtake all that we understand of 'meaning'. That whatever we have determined to be meaningful is really only some sort of mechanical process in the structure of the brain. Although he does not go into this much it should be clear that his chemico-materialist Weltanschauung heralds the potential destruction of meaning as something free-standing (I am unsure how to express this) and independent of a material event. I cannot help but attempt to speculate as to how the application of this Weltanschauung will take shape in the society he envisions. But here is the thing: We definitely have an example if we consider the political and social implications of *Chinese communism*. And if we are not aware of the degree to which the core ideas, or really the lack of ideas and a reductionist, materialist political posture (a Leviathan state) is taking shape around us right now, then we had better open our eyes.

He involves himself in discursive loops. He presents his ideas as an intellectual hegemony through dreary pseudo-intellectual incantations which repeat themselves. (I know that the term pseudo-intellectual is overused but in his case it really does fit). His position is always expressed through scorn except in his initial, over-friendly appeals. Again his "doctrines felt as facts" remain unexamined by him for their metaphysical implications.

[godelian]

Your application has been duly approved.

There are lots of examples of Alan Turing's combination of (Oracle, Pathological) programs operating in the world right now. In both the Ukraine and Palestine wars, you have interceptor systems trying to predict the trajectory and target of a missile or a drone, which in turn seek to defeat these prediction systems.

Rice Theorem says that no matter how well you write the software for the interceptors, it will ultimately be defeated by the improved tactics of the missiles and the drones that it tries to intercept. It is obviously useless and irrelevant to invoke the conservation laws of physics in this context. They will not override the unpredictability caused by Rice Theorem.

Even in military matters, physicalism is a very stupid way of looking at things. It is a dumb and ineffective worldview. You won't get anywhere by adopting it.

[BigMike]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality.

What I suggest is to identify the need that you feel so very deeply inside yourself and which is the binding motivation within your chemico-materialist platform.

[FlashDangerpants]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

That's a statement of axiomatic assumptions. Nobody who is remotely versed in philosphy can take you seriously if you persist in denying this obvious fact.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

You are asking people to prove a negative.

[BigMike]

Before diving into any philosophical discussion with those who ask me questions and expect answers, I must ensure we're operating on the same foundational understanding of reality. I adhere to the scientific principle that everything that happens in the universe is caused by the exchange of conserved physical properties (such as energy, momentum, charge, etc.) through the application of the fundamental forces of nature—whether we currently identify them as four, five, or even six.

That's a statement of axiomatic assumptions. Nobody who is remotely versed in philosphy can take you seriously if you persist in denying this obvious fact.

If you do not agree with this causal framework, I kindly ask you to present evidence refuting it before we proceed further. This is not meant to shut down dialogue but to establish a baseline for meaningful conversation. Without shared assumptions, we're likely to talk past each other, wasting both my time and yours.

You are asking people to prove a negative.

Flash, it’s not axiomatic; it’s hypothetic, based on centuries of empirical observation and scientific theory. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge—are not arbitrary assumptions but hypotheses rigorously tested and never falsified in any known context. If they were falsified, physics as we know it would collapse, so the framework is not baseless but empirically grounded.

I’m not asking anyone to “prove a negative.” If someone rejects the causal framework of conserved physical properties, they’re free to provide evidence or reasoning showing where it fails. That’s the nature of science—it builds hypotheses, tests them, and refines understanding based on new evidence. What I’m doing is holding the discussion to a standard of evidence, not entertaining unsupported contradictions for their own sake. If you can show where conservation laws or causal principles fail, I’m all ears. Otherwise, this is just rhetorical noise. Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Refusal to comply with my terms will be considered yet another application to be transferred to my ignore list. If you can't engage with the premises I've laid out or provide evidence against them, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

I hereby offer BigMike $8,000 for EACH MEMBER he liberates from the Prison of Ignore!