## Comprehending the incomprehensible

Expand Messages
• Partially comprehending the incomprehensible. (A short note, really it is.) One has the usual I don t understand what you re talking about complaints when I
Message 1 of 1 , Oct 3, 2006
Partially comprehending the incomprehensible. (A short note, really it is.)

One has the usual "I don't understand what you're talking about complaints" when I discusses GID. [Note: Except for a few defined symbols, no mathematics is presented below.] The mathematics that shows that a Biblical described deity is a scientifically rational concept is most certainly not within the mainstream since no mathematical approach had even been found by anyone until 1978 to establish this fact. If it had been easy to do this, it would have been done previously. It took many years to even develop a descriptive language since I discovered that Weinberg had already taken some terms I chose that "might" give some comprehension. In this first "short note," I'll try and give some additional partial comprehension for the term "ultralogic" by comparing the "mental" GID interpreted properties with those of some corresponding human mental processes.

What I present next holds for inductive as well as deductive mental processes. Look at a physics science-community textbook-derivation for the highly discussed galactic redshift. You can, as I have done, specifically trace out the step-by-step logical steps used to obtain the redshift expression. These steps form an explicit logic-system. This logic-system is a part of the much larger physics science-communities logic-system that may by mostly implicit in character until one explicitly argues for a prediction. Represent this physics logic-system by P.

For intuitive simplicity, consider P as presenting everything using a language L of specifically combined symbols. (The notion of what constitutes a language is extended for the GGU-model to include all digitized sensory specific information.) By-the-way, please use your intuition as to what "finite" and "infinite" means. Now after doing all sorts of stuff, the characterizing processes displayed by P are embedded into a mathematical theory. The theory yields another object *P. The *P was originally called a "superlogic" but I changed the name to "ultralogic." But, why use the prefix "super" or "ultra"? Are "mental" processes characterized by *P really "super," "ultra," when compared to P? Why do I term the characteristics for *P as those of a higher intelligence?

In terms of higher intelligence (HI) terminology, it terms out that the HI uses the *P process on members of an infinitely larger language *L than L. But, our human language is contained in *L. If you restrict all of the HI mental activity to L, the natural world say, you get P. So, mentally, human beings are associated with these HI "starred" processes. But, basically, what can the HI do that human beings cannot?

Human beings can only obtain a specific deduction using a finite step-by-step mental process applied to a finite set of hypotheses. But, the *P characteristics state that HI can use an infinite set of hypotheses. Further, using *P, HI can present its deductions using infinitely many steps. Now let X be a set of hypotheses that humans can use, and Y the set of all deductions that can be made by the physics science-community. Then using the same X, HI deduces the set of conclusions *Y. *Y can be the same as Y, but, although *Y contains Y, *Y is, usually, infinitely bigger than Y. This is the exact definition for a "stronger" mental process and indicates why *P represents a HI agent. It certainly takes humans a while to make such deductions as measured by "observer" time. How "fast" can HI deduce something? There is another ultralogic *S that comes from an exceptional simple form of human deduction S. But, what I state next is difficult to comprehend unless one realizes that HI can measure time in manners different from how humans measure it. However, this HI form for "time" is but a mere sequence notion. It turns out that HI can take a single hypothesis w, and produce infinitely many deductions during a single instant (i.e. 0 length interval) of observer time.

Another aspect of the HI mental processes is relative to the language *L. This language contains certain objects that behavior like ordinary words, sentences and has a grammar. But, for these objects, no human being can have any direct knowledge as to what are the words, sentences or even the symbols. The HI can use hypotheses from this unknowable portion of its language and deduce meaningful members for our language L for which humans can have direct knowledge.

There are other rather unusual differences between the HI's mental processes and what humans can do but it requires one to have a basic knowledge of the workings of the nonstandard model. Nevertheless, these intuitive notions, in my view, certainly should indicate, on a basic level, why I call such *P and *S ultralogics. BUT, now I come to the truly sensational difference between ultralogics and human mental activity.

One can characterize human mental processes in a general manner. Then it turns out that there are other HI mental processes called "pure" ultralogics. This type does not carry the "star" on the symbol used to identify it. They have all of the same characteristics as listed above but with a major difference. If you restrict their behavior to the language L, to the natural world, you do not get all of the properties being expressed by the pure ultralogic. The ultralogics that model probabilistic behavior are of this type. In this case, this shows that HI has designed each finite sequence of the specific physical events, where it is often assumed that the behavior is random, AND maintains the probabilistic behavior as well.

Next, I'll characterize the w mentioned above. It does not correspond to a member of L.

Dr. Bob
Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)