Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite female on the planet. If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel Contact (or saw the movie) - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) Introduction by Richard Dawkins cheers, Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Hi Kim, Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice talk. I appreciate a lot. She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is agnostic. I believe in God (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g = 'God' exists, ~ = negation) But B~g, the athesist statement, is a religious statement too. Atheism is a religion. (and doubly so for the materialist atheists). Crazily enough, I note she shows this in the exact manner of the introductory chapter of Conscience et Mécanisme). So honest atheists exists. Not so sure why she said she believes (religiously) in the non existence of God, without saying what she means by the word, especially that later she talk of science as the quest for the truth, but with comp the mathematical notion of truth (relative to a machine and relative to the possible machine views) obeys literally to the notion of God in the Greek Theology of Plato (according to my own understanding of Plato, but confirmed by Plotinus and Hirschberger). Mainly 'God' = the transcendent human-ineffable truth we are invited to search/explore/contemplate. Making Science, the quest of the truth, like Carrolyn Porko did (two times, at the two third of that video), is the basic axiom of Plato's theology. It makes science and reason (and mathematics, and music, ...) the most basic tools in the search of the admittedly religious (by science modesty!) truth. * * * Let me give you 3, (3! yes there is one more!) basic reasons to consider Digital Mechanism as a theology (actually a framework for variate theologies (Mechanism will not stop all possible religious conflicts, on the contrary given the existence of very different possible practices, like overlapping or not with the duplicate ... ). - 1) To say yes to the doctor, even if some oracle guaranties the competence of the doctor and the accuracy of the comp substitution level, etc, is an irreductible act of faith in the possibility of a (relative) digital reincarnation. - 2) It is a scientific theology in the following precise sense: To each machine, or machine's state, (or machine relative description) we associate the set of true arithmetical sentences concerning that machine (described in arithmetic, say). Roughly speaking: Science = provability Religion = truth (in the spirit, I am humble and modest, and I search) Then, not only a universal machine can introspect itself and discover the gap between truth and provability. It can not only discover the unnameability of its own truth notion, but a very rich (in term of provability power) machine (like ZF) can study a big (not all) part of the theology of a more simpler Löbian machine, like Peano-Arithmetic. So although a machine cannot know that she is correct, she can lift the invariant theology of simpler lobian machine. Of course she cannot assert she has proved those statement, but she can assert that those are probably true as far as she is correct, and comp is correct. But there is a third reason. -3) Church thesis. Also called Church Turing Thesis, and which I call sometimes Post law, or Gödel Miracle, or Post, Church, Turing, Markov thesis. Its truth entails the truth of the weaker thesis according to which there exists a universal machine. But do we know that? can we know that? Do we know if there is a universal language, or a universal machine? No one can prove that, of course. So here too you need to do a bet: an axiom, a thesis, an hypothesis. The miracle (Gödel) is that the set of partial computable functions is closed for the diagonalization, it cannot be transcended. As Gödel said, for the first time we get a mathematical definition of an epistemological concept. Gödel did hope that a similar thesis could exists for the notion of provability, but its own theorem, together with Church thesis prevents this (I think). And then all attempts to define the computable functions leaded to the same class of partial computable functions. We get all the (total) computable functions, but they have to be situated in a non computable sequences among all the partial functions, as shown by Kleene's diagonalization (as shown in the last seventh step serie thread, but I guess I have to come back on this). I recall that a total function is a partial function with subdomain equal to the whole N (N is included in N). So comp, by Church thesis, is also a positive belief in a universal machine, despite the lack of proof of existence). Of course Turing *did* prove its famous theorem saying that A Universal Turing machine exists. It is a theorem (even of arithmetic) that universal TURING machine exists, and that universal CHURCH lambda expression exists, and that universal SHOENFINKEL-CURRY combinators exists, etc. For each universal language it can be shown a universal finite entity exists. But this does not prove that there is
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Kim, Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice talk. I appreciate a lot. She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is agnostic. "I believe in God" (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g = 'God' exists", "~" = negation) But B~g, the athesist statement, is a religious statement too. Atheism is a religion. (and doubly so for the materialist atheists). Crazily enough, I note she shows this in the exact manner of the introductory chapter of "Conscience et Mcanisme"). So honest atheists exists. Not so sure why she said she believes (religiously) in the non existence of God, without saying what she means by the word, especially that later she talk of science as the "quest for the truth", but with comp the mathematical notion of truth (relative to a machine and relative to the possible machine views) obeys literally to the notion of "God" in the Greek Theology of Plato (according to my own understanding of Plato, but confirmed by Plotinus and Hirschberger). Mainly 'God' = the transcendent human-ineffable truth we are invited to search/explore/contemplate. Making "Science", the quest of the truth, like Carrolyn Porko did (two times, at the two third of that video), is the basic axiom of Plato's theology. It makes science and reason (and mathematics, and music, ...) the most basic tools in the search of the admittedly religious (by science modesty!) truth. * * * Let me give you 3, (3! yes there is one more!) basic reasons to consider "Digital Mechanism" as a theology (actually a framework for variate theologies (Mechanism will not stop all possible religious conflicts, on the contrary given the existence of very different possible practices, like overlapping or not with the duplicate ... ). - 1) To say "yes" to the doctor, even if some oracle guaranties the competence of the doctor and the accuracy of the comp substitution level, etc, is an irreductible act of faith in the possibility of a (relative) digital reincarnation. - 2) It is a "scientific theology" in the following precise sense: To each machine, or machine's state, (or machine relative description) we associate the set of true arithmetical sentences concerning that machine (described in arithmetic, say). Roughly speaking: Science = provability Religion = truth (in the spirit, I am humble and modest, and I search) Then, not only a universal machine can introspect itself and discover the gap between truth and provability. It can not only discover the unnameability of its own truth notion, but a very rich (in term of provability power) machine (like ZF) can study a big (not all) part of the theology of a more simpler Lbian machine, like Peano-Arithmetic. So although a machine cannot know that she is correct, she can lift the "invariant" theology of simpler lobian machine. Of course she cannot assert she has proved those statement, but she can assert that those are probably true as far as she is "correct", and comp is correct. But there is a third reason. -3) Church thesis. Also called Church Turing Thesis, and which I call sometimes Post law, or Gdel Miracle, or Post, Church, Turing, Markov thesis. Its truth entails the truth of the weaker thesis according to which there exists a universal machine. But do we know that? can we know that? Do we know if there is a universal language, or a universal machine? No one can prove that, of course. So here too you need to do a bet: an axiom, a thesis, an hypothesis. The miracle (Gdel) is that the set of partial computable functions is closed for the diagonalization, it cannot be transcended. As Gdel said, for the first time we get a mathematical definition of an epistemological concept. Gdel did hope that a similar thesis could exists for the notion of provability, but its own theorem, together with Church thesis prevents this (I think). And then all attempts to define the computable functions leaded to the same class of partial computable functions. We get all the (total) computable functions, but they have to be situated in a non computable sequences among all the partial functions, as shown by Kleene's diagonalization (as shown in the last "seventh step serie thread", but I guess I have to come back on this). I recall that a total function is a partial function with subdomain equal to the whole N (N is included in N). So comp, by Church thesis, is also a positive belief in a universal machine, despite the lack of proof of existence). Of course Turing *did* prove its famous theorem saying that A Universal Turing machine exists. It is a theorem (even of arithmetic) that universal TURING machine exists, and that universal CHURCH lambda _expression_ exists, and that universal SHOENFINKEL-CURRY combinators exists, etc. For each universal language it can be shown a universal
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote: I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic. But the trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives. So now I generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what theists believe. So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent, omniscient, and ominibenevolent. Thinking that such a god is does not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence and not contradicted by any credible evidence. I know you adopt a very abstract and mathematical meaning for theism, but we don't get to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define agnostic. Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction. Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense. I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a classical teleportation). Digital Mechanism is only my favorite working hypothesis, and also, I admit, I find it rather plausible given the quantum facts. But honestly, I don't know, and I gave reason why we cannot *know* that. It is part of the true but uncommunicable theological facts, and eventually it concerns only me and my doctor/shaman/priester/whatever. And then, as a computer scientist, I show also that the logic of self- reference by self-correct machine provides an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus theology. But from this, comp is only made refutable, not proved. Bruno Brent On 13 Nov 2009, at 12:17, Kim Jones wrote: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite female on the planet. If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel Contact (or saw the movie) - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) Introduction by Richard Dawkins cheers, Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl= . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote: I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic. But the trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved us but had an obsessive interest in our sex lives. So now I generally tell people I'm an atheist, unless I think they are interested in a philosophical answer, because I don't believe what theists believe. So atheism is not a religion, it is a failure to believe in the theist gods - those gods that are agents, omnipotent, omniscient, and ominibenevolent. Thinking that such a god is does not exist is a scientific theory, i.e. one supported by the evidence and not contradicted by any credible evidence. I know you adopt a very abstract and mathematical meaning for theism, but we don't get to define the meaning of words any more than I got to define agnostic. Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell them we're agnostic about God we will be telling them that we have no good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction. Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense. I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a classical teleportation). If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on everything. But that definition implies science is no better than guessing and all opinions are equal. I think we need to keep a distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of having good evidence for. Brent Digital Mechanism is only my favorite working hypothesis, and also, I admit, I find it rather plausible given the quantum facts. But honestly, I don't know, and I gave reason why we cannot *know* that. It is part of the true but uncommunicable theological facts, and eventually it concerns only me and my doctor/shaman/priester/whatever. And then, as a computer scientist, I show also that the logic of self-reference by self-correct machine provides an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus theology. But from this, comp is only made refutable, not proved. Scientific theories are never proved. That doesn't mean we're agnostic about whether the Earth is flat or spheroidal. Brent Bruno Brent On 13 Nov 2009, at 12:17, Kim Jones wrote: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite female on the planet. If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel Contact (or saw the movie) - this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster in the film) Introduction by Richard Dawkins cheers, Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
