Re: Goldilocks world

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:29:39 -0500

Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
To: <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.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
Received on Tue Nov 22 2005 - 19:32:04 PST