Re: Goldilocks world
DAMN! Russell replied before me!!
I was going to say - George you're a bloody genius. Stand up and take
a bow. Wait till I tell his Reverend the Archbishop of thingummy this!
He won't believe it I'll bet
"Onward!" as Stephen goes
Kim
On 23/11/2005, at 8:37 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Nice one George!
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:46:47AM -0800, George Levy wrote:
Kim Jones wrote:
can God in her omniscient, omnipotent wisdom create a rock that
is so
heavy even God herself cannot lift it? ;-)
Kim Jones
Along these lines I found a way to resolve the theist and the atheist
viewpoints: It is simply to assert that god is so big and powerful
(omniscient and omnipotent) that he is the creator of a world
capable of
creating itself. Hence his role in creation is nil even though he
is the
creator. This approach allows the scientific process to continue
as if
there were no god. Evolution is OK. The big bang is OK. It also
satisfies the theists because it raises god to such unimaginable
level
of power that he is able create this way: by doing nothing. This
god is
surely bigger than any "hands-on-creation" god that classical
religions
have come up with. ;-)
George
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
--
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://
parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
--
--
Re: Goldilocks world
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Subject: Re: Goldilocks world Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:29:39 -0500 Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al, - Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[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 statement? Onward! Stephen A mathematical platonist would believe that true statements about arithmetic expressed in a particular language represent platonic truths about arithmetic that are independent of any particular language you might use to express them. Anyway, an omniscient being would presumably have a specific language in mind when judging the truth of any statement made in symbols, whereas Borges' library or the chalkboard does not specify what language should be used to interpret a given sequence of symbols. Jesse
Re: Goldilocks world
Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al, - Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[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 statement? Onward! Stephen
Re: Goldilocks world
Nice one George!
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:46:47AM -0800, George Levy wrote:
> Kim Jones wrote:
>
> >can God in her omniscient, omnipotent wisdom create a rock that is so
> >heavy even God herself cannot lift it? ;-)
> >
> >Kim Jones
>
>
> Along these lines I found a way to resolve the theist and the atheist
> viewpoints: It is simply to assert that god is so big and powerful
> (omniscient and omnipotent) that he is the creator of a world capable of
> creating itself. Hence his role in creation is nil even though he is the
> creator. This approach allows the scientific process to continue as if
> there were no god. Evolution is OK. The big bang is OK. It also
> satisfies the theists because it raises god to such unimaginable level
> of power that he is able create this way: by doing nothing. This god is
> surely bigger than any "hands-on-creation" god that classical religions
> have come up with. ;-)
>
> George
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpHwdKGu5QXH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Goldilocks world
Kim Jones wrote: can God in her omniscient, omnipotent wisdom create a rock that is so heavy even God herself cannot lift it? ;-) Kim Jones Along these lines I found a way to resolve the theist and the atheist viewpoints: It is simply to assert that god is so big and powerful (omniscient and omnipotent) that he is the creator of a world capable of creating itself. Hence his role in creation is nil even though he is the creator. This approach allows the scientific process to continue as if there were no god. Evolution is OK. The big bang is OK. It also satisfies the theists because it raises god to such unimaginable level of power that he is able create this way: by doing nothing. This god is surely bigger than any "hands-on-creation" god that classical religions have come up with. ;-) George
Re: Goldilocks world
Le 22-nov.-05, à 10:41, Jesse Mazer a écrit : 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). Jesse I agree. It is a frequent confusion in the list. Also, people can read the book by Grim "The Incomplete Universe" for a case that omniscience alone (i.e. without omnipotence) is already contradictory. Grim, P. (1991). The Incomplete Universe. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Goldilocks world
Russell Standish wrote: That is the logical argument against omnipotence. IIRC, Aquinas knew of these arguments, and so I gather omnipotence and omniscience are not actually part of christian theological creed. Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a christian) :) Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure most christian sects consider God to be omiscient and omnipotent, although I'm not a christian either. And the "rock so heavy he can't lift it" isn't too hard to solve if you restrict omnipotence to that which is logically possible (because it seems the very definition of omnipotence makes the idea of a rock that can't be lifted by an omnipotent being self-contradictory). Jesse
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). Jesse
