Re: Goldilocks world

2005-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

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

2005-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

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

2005-11-23 Thread Stathis Papaioannou


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

2005-11-23 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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=clickclientID=667referral=HotmailTaglineNovURL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething




RE: Goldilocks world

2005-11-22 Thread Jesse Mazer

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

2005-11-22 Thread George Levy

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

2005-11-22 Thread Russell Standish
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

2005-11-22 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al,

- Original Message - 
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
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

2005-11-22 Thread Jesse Mazer





From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
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]; everything-list@eskimo.com
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

2005-11-22 Thread Kim Jones

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

2005-11-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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=clickclientID=667referral=HotmailTaglineNovURL=http://www.ninemsn.com.au/startsomething




Re: Goldilocks world

2005-11-21 Thread Russell Standish
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=clickclientID=667referral=HotmailTaglineNovURL=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

2005-11-21 Thread Kim Jones
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=clickclientID=667referral=HotmailTaglineNovURL=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

2005-11-21 Thread Russell Standish
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

2005-11-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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

2005-11-21 Thread Kim Jones
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
-- 
--