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

Human Simulation is Possible - by Humans

  Human Simulation: Agent-Based Modeling and the Computational Case for Our Reality   1.       Introduction In the essay, we introduce the notion that humanity could be a deliberate simulation based on an extremely simple single-celled organism, hardly anything more complex than that. This will allow an (apparently) new interpretation of the notion that humanity is simulated, but that there is no master engineer at a massive number of dials and switches, responsible for every twist and turn of our universe and lives. We begin with the notion that the universe exists and operates under its own laws. So, given the Earth [2] , when and where life first began, it was infused with a living agent, self-actualized, reproductive, and with other basic rules for its operations, interactions, and much of what single-celled organisms do today. The idea from this occurred some years back when writing code in ActionScript (formerly Flash), I was able to create...

The Calculus of Ideas and Patterns

  Introduction. When dealing with ideas, patterns, intuition, and brainstorming, we need operations or rules not unlike those of arithmetic. The goal is not proof, a finished device, or a fait accompli , but rather a foundation for further investigation and study. In some cases, these operations may yield a proposition, that is, something capable of being proved. In this sense, they form a practical logic of intuition. The article concludes with a few select examples from a variety of venues. Setting. We are working with a given idea, problem, or project, or simply just thinking. Our aim is to discover pathways, patterns, or conceptual connections that may be useful. The following operations describe ways in which ideas and patterns can be generated, transformed, or refined. These also work toward understanding the imagination. Yet, this framework is distinguished from formal logic and proof. We are tempted to call them as “soft logic” because while nothing is proved, reasons...

Freedom of Speech

  Think of freedom of speech as a living organism. Then think of what is required for it to survive. Coming to mind are a population agreeable to its constitution (its environment) and the institutions (its nutrients) that keep it healthy. Currently, many institutions, including some political parties, question unfettered freedom of speech and are working to deny it, claiming it is unhealthy for the body politic. Yes? No?