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...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Infinity of Theories

I do love the Stock Markets, all of them.   Why?   Because of the abundance of theories.    Every day, no matter how the market moves there are dozens of pundits offering forth their theory as to why it went down – or up, where it’s going tomorrow or next week, and why it must crash soon or maybe elevate another couple thousand more points.   Ok, this is fine.   But the next day these same folks may expound theories postulating the opposite.   This proves market pundits have no essential understanding of economics as related to the market.   This proves pundits prefer expedience to understanding.   I am constantly besieged by brokerage firms telling me if I would only invest a million, they would help me reach my goals.   If I had this information, how to make a lot of money, I would borrow every cent I could and apply it to making a bunch of money.   I’d not tell a soul. So, why are they trying to help me?   Well, ...