Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: RE: Goldilocks world
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
George Levy writes:
Along the line of Jorge Luis Borges a blackboard covered in chalk
contains the library of Babel (everything) but no information. Similarly
a white board covered with ink also contains no information.
Interestingly, information is minimized or actually goes to zero when the
world is too large as the plenitude, or too small. Information is
maximized when the world is neither too large nor too small. We live in a
Can we talk about knowledge or intelligence in a similar way? A rock is
completely stupid and ignorant. A human has some knowledge and some
intelligence (the Goldilocks case). God is said to be omniscient:
infinitely knowlegeable, infinitely intelligent. Doesn't this mean that
God is the equivalent of the blackboard covered in chalk, or the rock?
Hmm...but isn't it relevant that an omniscient being is only supposed to
know all *true* information, while the blackboard covered in chalk or
Borges' library would contain all sentences, both true and false? It's
like the difference between the set of all possible grammatical statements
about arithmetic, and the set of all grammatical statements about
arithmetic that are actually true (1+1=2 but not 1+1=3).
Does this assertion not assume a particular method of coding the "true"
grammatical statements? Could we not show that if we allow for all possible
encodings, symbol systems, etc. that *any* sequence will code a true