Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al,

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 Goldilock world.

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?

Stathis Papaioannou

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



Reply via email to