Skip to main content

From the Coronavirus to God



“There is no problem the mind of man can set that the mind of man cannot solve.”
Samuel Johnson


If you recall this quote, it may be from the 1946 Sherlock Holmes movie, “Dressed to Kill” starring Basil Rathbone.  It does make you think, but it also gives you hope. It gives hope we can solve anything we come across.  It gives hope we can ultimately answer every question – though some may take more time than others.


Unfortunately, Dr. Johnson was wrong. 

The problem here is that from the work of mathematicians, particularly Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), we see there are true propositions that cannot be proved, and can never be proved, true. Many have already been discovered.  It seems almost paradoxical that we can prove them unprovable, but cannot not prove them.  The implication is that problem can be set and then found can never be proved. Such problems are beyond unknown unknowns, they are undecidable.  In other language, we can with a slight linguistic stretch prove there will be Black Swan events, but we cannot prove what they will be.

In today’s Coronavirus event, we find a middle ground for this.  We can agree that a disease will present that will rock the world, but we can never predict the disease itself, the time it occurs, or where it will arise.


In terms of computing we can say a problem is decidable if we can construct a Turing machine which will halt in finite amount of time for every input and give answer as ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A problem is undecidable if this is not so. And there are many such problems.


It is simple to say that Samuel Johnson was wrong.  Lots of important people have been wrong but remain luminaries in our world. But in a deeper meaning, it indicates we may have one day two entirely different fully compatible explanations of the universe but will never be able to determine which, if either, is correct.  Being more theosophical, we may never be able to decide whether or not there is a God, maintaining the ages-old feeling it is a matter of faith. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view