Re: Goldilocks world
Hi John, Bruno,Hi, thanks for your speedy and considerate answer. Your examples are so simplistic, as only the science of logic can provide. Let me try better examples: --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: " For example you can know that "1+1 = 3" is false, but in that case you know the *truth* of the proposition " "1+1=3" is false". Could we figure anything beyond 101 elementary school arithmetics? Why? The point is just to agree (or agree that we disagree) on some definition. The point is that nobody can know "something false", as opposed to knowing that some proposition is false. It is better to illustrate such nuance with elementary propositions nobody (really) doubt about (of the kind 1+1 = 2, or "1+1 = 3" is false). E.g.: People and scientists, priests, etc. KNEW for many centuries, including the early medieval ages that the Earth is the center of the world and everything rotates around it. They knew that? Or they believed that ? I don't think it makes sense to say they knew that, unless you have another definition of knowledge. It is up to you to explain the difference between belief and knowledge. Epistemologist generally agree that knowledge verify the Bp -> p formula (If I know p then p is true). This is just because the truth is put in the knowledge by definition. If not, it means we talk on beliefs. Of course many people pretend that they know some proposition, and occasionally they are wrong: but then they say (if honest): "ok I was wrong but I believed it", they does not say "ok I was wrong but I knew it". And I do think our definition should be coherent with the way we talk, unless there is a big reason to depart from the traditional use. Then came Copernicus and said: this is wrong, the sun is the middlepoint. And people though reluctantly, believed it. Then came cosmologists and said that is wrong, there is NO center, everything - including the Sun is moving around. And people believed it finally, in droves. Until Eistein came around and procalimed: nothing moves around anything, because all movement is relative to the others, --- ACCORDINGLY: the notion that everything rotates around the Earth is just as true as any other belief put forward ever since. (Warum habe wir die Kröten gefressen?) But this oscillation is a quite complex things, and the usage of the word "knowing" here is quite sophisticated (that is why I did limit myself to very elementary arithmetic exemple). All what I can say is that if the earh is at the center of the world then the priest knew it, and poor of us, we believe (wrongly) the contrary. If the earth is not at the center of the world then the priests did believed (wrongly) that, and we know better. But your example includes a notion of relativity which limits its use for making clear the difference between the notion of belief and knowledge. Popper had the idea that nothing in science can be proven as true, only falsification is possible, does that mean that all science is false? It just means that all (empirical) science is uncertain. Actually a large part of analytical science is also uncertain but for different reasons (and then with comp it can be shown that there are relations between those different sort of uncertainties), but it would be senseless to mention them before we agree on the basic vocabulary. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Goldilocks world
Le 25-nov.-05, à 07:16, Kim Jones a écrit : You cannot affect your intelligence. You are stuck with it. It is the measure of the speed at which neurons in your brain fire and receive impulses. From your post I see we agree on many things and I don't need to add comments, except on this quoted sentence and similar below. I don't think we are stuck with our intelligence (in the general sense which we are opposing to competence). Actually I would say that the speed of processing is more on the side of competence than intelligence (although I.J. Good makes an interesting analysis of "free-will" in term of processing speed). Remember I am used to get conversation in Platonia with Platonic machine which in general are very slow (because there is no need to optimize them given that in Platonia we have "all the time"). I think intelligence, again in that large sense of just an ability of doubting, is very close to courage, and is perhaps just a matter of attitude. I do think people can get it in one second, but also to loose it in one second. Generally this happens after some shock, like when a people you care about dies or when yourself have some accident or anything which can quickly make fragile some of your oldest prejudice. Competence is dynamic / intelligence is a frozen quantity of something Same remark. I do think that "intelligence" is the normal state of any (naive) self-introspective machine. Pain, disease, problematic parents, problematic social neighborhoods, lack of education etc. all those rather banal life circumstances can destroy it for a time. And the same things can also re-awake it (if that is still english). My favorite definition of ... ... is that thing that once you give it/he/she/e a name or a description, then you can say "hello" to the catastrophes Ain't it "the truth"! This is also surely because "the truth" is a con job. Truth or *identity* - which is what you are talking about here - is often the place at which all movement in thinking ceases. Once you name something you have slapped a label on it and labels tend to be sticky things in the warm, spongey human brain. Yes. And the story of humanity is full of examples. Now it is hard, at least for me, not to point toward the basic theorems of mathematical logic in this setting. Tarski theorem: sound löbian machines cannot name their truth predicate. Gödel's incompleteness theorem: sound lobian machine cannot prove their own consistency. Now, the lobian machines, which are just the self-referentially correct machine having enough introspective power, can prove their Godel's theorem, and so they can know that if they are consistent they can be inconsistent, and that is a logical reason for doubting, and that's why I think to be intelligent is the natural state of a machine, and thus loosing that intelligence is (alas) also natural. It is like to be alive: to be alive *is* to be able to die. Dt -> DBf, to sum up. And that formula characterizes the multiverse where all transient observer-moment can reach dead-ends. Will come back to this. Scientists should stay well clear of truth. Mathematicians own it. A scientist has the right to search for the truth, and even to say so. But he can never be sure it owns it. I'm not sure mathematicians own it, except perhaps for a tiny part of math, but then everyone owns that part (except highly disabled person). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Goldilocks world
On 25/11/2005, at 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is another reason to use the term competence in this setting. Intelligence is really more like humility or modesty, or wiseness. Agreed. People often confuse intelligence with thinking ability (= operacy, skill at doing) Edward de Bono defines intelligence as "The horsepower of the car". It is then, as given a value (probably at birth or not long after) as, say, the shape of your earlobe or the length of your willy! You cannot affect your intelligence. You are stuck with it. It is the measure of the speed at which neurons in your brain fire and receive impulses. The competency is then the skill with which the car is driven (skill in thinking, operacy/competency at). The point being: you can buy a Porsche and drive it badly and kill yourself (woops! I meant "reduce your measure in the MV") or you can buy a humble volkswagon and drive it modestly and inexpensively and arrive maybe a little late. In general it is not something which can be evaluated or measured. Unless you believe in the results of IQ tests. I don't. Why the hell schools still use them is beyond me Only competence (and even only in circumscribed fields) can be measured. Competence is dynamic / intelligence is a frozen quantity of something In school and universities, I think it is a very sad error to confuse the two. Someone can be very intelligent but completely incompetent. For example when you have neural problems disallowing your interface with the world. And the reverse is true too, someone can be very competent in some field and be completely non- intelligent, incapable of doubting. I can see we share common ground on this If we include artistic creativity, the amount of "knowledge" increases, including abstract art, abstract literature, every possible musical composition... the blackboard and the library begin to fill again. It seems that God has to be a hard-headed scientist who eschews all that artistic nonsense for his omniscience to be meaningful. My favorite definition of ... ... is that thing that once you give it/he/she/e a name or a description, then you can say "hello" to the catastrophes Ain't it "the truth"! This is also surely because "the truth" is a con job. Truth or *identity* - which is what you are talking about here - is often the place at which all movement in thinking ceases. Once you name something you have slapped a label on it and labels tend to be sticky things in the warm, spongey human brain. Patterns of recognition act almost like black holes and suck in all related matter. If something is said to be *true* then no one thinks much about it anymore and, more crucially for THIS discussion - all information flow drops to nil. That's because the Black Hole of Truth has just swallowed up a whole bunch of creative thinking. Scientists should stay well clear of truth. Mathematicians own it. This is Bruno's problem in trying to get maths heads to talk to physics heads. We have the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (the Greek Gang of Three) to thank for a thinking system where simple recognition passes for thinking. All someone has to do is present something to you as the truth and 98 per cent will believe it and forget about it. The reason is quite simply that a pattern of recognition has been placed in the mind and functions as such (this is the basis of the black magic of advertising). Edward de Bono has defined a special type of competency: "Lateral thinking" which is a synonym for creative thinking. This is where (using formal techniques that can be learnt) one learns how to cut across the established patterns and make (dare I say it) a quantum leap to the outcome. Kim === A thought once thought cannot be unthought (Edward de Bono) kimjones@ ozemail.com.au
Re: Goldilocks world
Le 24-nov.-05, à 02:06, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Jesse Mazer writes: 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 OK, so information = all information, true or false; Mmh... All information is also akin to no information at all (which explains perhaps why some people makes back and forth between the notion of everything and nothing). but knowledge = only the true information. Glad to hear that. This illustrates the necessity of agreeing on definition. I thought nobody would contest that: IF Claude knows p THEN p is true, by definition of knowledge. If Claude says that she knows some proposition k, and if it happens later that k appears to be false, Claude will not say that she knew k, but that she believed k. That is what the difference between belief and knowledge is all about. In the modal theories of knowledge we have always the axiom Bp -> p. In the modal theory of belief we never ask for the axiom Bp -> p. Just because it makes sense to belief something wrong. But no entities can know something wrong. If someone believes that we can *know* something wrong, I would say there is a confusion between the notion of belief and the notion of knowledge. To insist, if Claude says I know p, and if you know that p is actually wrong, you will say that Claude believes something wrong, you will not say that Claude knows something wrong. I hope everyone agree we take the formula Bp -> p as axioms for a notion of knowledge. In that case, we could say that intelligence in an omniscient being is superfluous, since intelligence could be defined as that ability which allows one to sort out the true propositions from the false using certain rules. Using rules, or using intuition, memory etc. Personnaly I prefer to use the weaker term of competence for the ability of making that true/false discrimination, reserving the word "intelligence" for something deeper more akin to an open-mindness state or an ability to doubt, etc. It will appear then that intelligence is necessary for the development of competence, but that the development of competence has a *negative feedback" on intelligence. You can perhaps feel that intuitively: to be very competent can make you forget that you can be wrong and this could degrade your doubting ability. On the other hand, this could be too narrow a view of knowledge and intelligence, restricted to scientific and logical thinking. That is another reason to use the term competence in this setting. Intelligence is really more like humility or modesty, or wiseness. In general it is not something which can be evaluated or measured. Only competence (and even only in circumscribed fields) can be measured. In school and universities, I think it is a very sad error to confuse the two. Someone can be very intelligent but completely incompetent. For example when you have neural problems disallowing your interface with the world. And the reverse is true too, someone can be very competent in some field and be completely non-intelligent, incapable of doubting. If we include artistic creativity, the amount of "knowledge" increases, including abstract art, abstract literature, every possible musical composition... the blackboard and the library begin to fill again. It seems that God has to be a hard-headed scientist who eschews all that artistic nonsense for his omniscience to be meaningful. My favorite definition of ... ... is that thing that once you give it/he/she/e a name or a description, then you can say "hello" to the catastrophes Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Goldilocks world
George Levy writes: 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's God is perhaps the ultimate expression of deism, the belief that God made the world but then refrained from any further interference in it. Most scientists who believe in God should be deists rather than theists if they are to be consistent, otherwise they would have to include divine intervention as a possible explanation for every experimental result. This type of God usually does not satisfy theists, however, because they cling to the idea that God is personally interested in them, listens to prayers, and may intervene in the world from time to time if he wishes. Stathis Papaioannou _ Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
RE: Goldilocks world
Jesse Mazer writes: 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 OK, so information = all information, true or false; but knowledge = only the true information. In that case, we could say that intelligence in an omniscient being is superfluous, since intelligence could be defined as that ability which allows one to sort out the true propositions from the false using certain rules. On the other hand, this could be too narrow a view of knowledge and intelligence, restricted to scientific and logical thinking. If we include artistic creativity, the amount of "knowledge" increases, including abstract art, abstract literature, every possible musical composition... the blackboard and the library begin to fill again. It seems that God has to be a hard-headed scientist who eschews all that artistic nonsense for his omniscience to be meaningful. Stathis Papaioannou _ Complimentary Notebook Consultation, courtesy by ASUS http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Easus%2Ecom%2Eau%2F&_t=752129232&_r=Hotmail_tagline_23Nov05&_m=EXT
Re: Goldilocks world
Hi Stephen, Le 23-nov.-05, à 01:29, Stephen Paul King a écrit : 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? Sure. It is enough to decide to encode some truth, like "1 = 1" by any strings. For example the string "6§yhY!!è" will effectively encode "1 = 1". Now, for any effective coding procedure, you will only get a tiny part of the true statements of arithmetic, by incompleteness. And that is why we need to fix the encoding at the start. Then, in any everything-like theory, we restrict the interpretation by the local encoding/decoding made by local machines, ... If not, the only possible TOE will be the inconsistent theory having all formula as theorem. This does not discriminate anything and could hardly be considered as providing a theory in the general sense of scientific theory, given that any facts always confirm it and always contradict it. It would be like to say that George Bush is the president of France, adding (after the history teacher makes a disappointment grin), "oh, but by France I mean that large north american country". Cool: you will always be right! Regards, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Goldilocks world
Hi John, Le 22-nov.-05, à 22:45, John M a écrit : Bruno: Why does Jesse - with your aproval - deny from the omniscient the knowledge of falls info - maybe WITH the notion that it is falls? I am not omniscient - believe it or not - but even I know a lot of falls info. By (standard) definition, I would say, no entities (being Gods, machines, humans, pebbles or extraterrestrials) can know something false. You can believe something false, but you cannot know something false. You can know that something is false, but in that case you know something true. For example you can know that "1+1 = 3" is false, but in that case you know the *truth* of the proposition " "1+1=3" is false". This is reflected in the fact that you will never hear someone saying "I knew that George Bush was the president of the french republic, but then I discovered that he was really the president of the USA". Instead you will hear: "I believed that George Bush was the president of the french republic, but then I discovered that he was really the president of the USA". Nobody has ever said "I knew earth is flat but I was false". The correct sentence is "I believed earth is flat but I was false". Indeed this is what has led people from India and China and then Plato to defined "knowing p" by "believing p and p is true" like the Theaetetus' first attempt to define knowledge. Then, the incompleteness phenomena makes those theaetetical nuances unexpectedly available for the sound machines. -- And 'is' a rock stupid and ignorant indeed? Who ever said that? Remember my old post (2001): http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg01513.html You can deduce from it that rocks and pebbles are most probably clever or "intelligent" according to my oldest theory of intelligence: where by definition a machine M is intelligent if and only if M is not stupid, and M is stupid if and only if M believes M is intelligent or M believes M is stupid. We have good reason to believe that pebbles have no such beliefs, and this is making them intelligent. You can take this as a weakness of such a theory, but the cleverness of pebbles here is just a reflection of the fact that nobody has ever heard a pebbles communicating some stupidity! I do believe that pebbles are wise and clever at least in that very general sense. For being stupid, there is a need of an already non trivial amount of "neural cells". --- Maybe in OUR (humanly logical? terms and topics: yes. You are the one linking "OUR" with humans. I take my "humanity" as a contingent, accidental, local, and not so interesting fact. More relevant for the fundamental questions is that I (and we) are most plausibly descendant of self-duplicating entities. Do we list all unstupidity and knowledgability in the totality? This is already provably impossible for arithmetical truth. -- Has anybody ever talked to a rock in rockese? They wrote big volumes about a (so called) H-atom. Is it really perfectly stupid? Holy Anthropocentrism! Look John, we are perhaps the first having the humility to ask machines about the fundamental questions and to insist listening to their answers. Is it possible to be less anthropocentric than that? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
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
Re: Goldilocks world
Wow! So only the Jews and the Muslims can officially rave on about
"G's Omnipotence" etc.
That it?
and IANAC either :)
Sorry - we're gittin off-topic here
he he he
Kim
On 22/11/2005, at 5:28 PM, 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) :)
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:57:41PM +1100, 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
--
*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
Hi, IANAC too, but I think it is part of it. When I talk about the little paradoxe of the rock to some christians they only say that the paradoxe is only in the language, that it cannot express what god is, and that in fact there is no contradiction at all ;) Le Mardi 22 Novembre 2005 07:28, Russell Standish a écrit : > 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) :) > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:57:41PM +1100, 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
Re: Goldilocks world
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) :)
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:57:41PM +1100, 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
>
--
*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
pgp78h0Y76lX5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Goldilocks world
can God in her omniscient, omnipotent wisdom create a rock that is so
heavy even God herself cannot lift it? ;-)
Kim Jones
On 22/11/2005, at 12:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes - I believe this is the logical problem with omniscient beings.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 12:28:16PM +1100, 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
_
Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?
mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://
www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
--
*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
Yes - I believe this is the logical problem with omniscient beings.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 12:28:16PM +1100, 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
>
> _
> Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads!
> http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
--
*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
pgpnxhaxrzcJU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: Goldilocks world
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 _ Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads! http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=667&referral=HotmailTaglineNov&URL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething
