BOG, ima li Ga ili Ga nema...

[woodooinstalater]

Ja sam Forum tvoj, nemoj imati drugih Foruma osim mene.Dakle, ako je ovo gore nesporno, da vidimo sta cemo s Njim.Prvo, izvori: izdavaci manje-vise OK, od ugleda sto bi se reklo, autori takodje:Stephen UnwinThe Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate TruthThree Rivers Press, 2004, ISBN978-1400054787Steven BramsSuperior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know?Springer, drugo izdanje, 2007, ISBN 978-0387908779Da ne prepricavam, prikaz iz:Izvor takodje pouzdan, iz pera Hemanta Mehte, nastavnika matematike, Neuqua Valley High School, Naperville, Il, inace autora I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith Through an Atheist's Eyes (Random House, 2007). Koga zanima, moze mu se i direktno obratiti: [email protected] bi trebao da ide spoiler, nema ga, koga ne mrzi da pogleda neka pogleda, ako je bilo da se brise.Tekst je skeniran - greske na moju dusu, On ce vec znati sta s njom. Original skena na raspolaganju.Both Stephen Unwin and Steven Brams have their work cut out for them in trying to mathematize God. Theologians, scientists, and atheists all have their opinions on God's existence (or lack thereof), but these authors want to throw numbers into the mix. Both books offer creative approaches to the problem in their own unique ways. Still, one book is much easier to comprehend and a joy to read; the other, while fascinating in its own right, will most likely be found only on professors' bookshelves.Stephen Unwin, a physicist and risk-analyst, is the author of The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth. Unwin admits that an exact answer to God's existence won't be found but feels that he can contribute where great minds before him have failed: "[They]did not think of addressing the issue of God's exis¬tence in a formal, probabilistic setting. They looked at the question in a strictly binary, deterministic way. They asked, 'Is there a God, yes or no?'"Here is the mother of all spoilers: The prob¬ability that the monotheistic, prayer-answering God exists is... 67%.That may be the conclusion to the book, but it's hardly the climax. Rather, the focus is on the process of getting to that number. The ques¬tions I asked myself as I read the book included: What equation(s) did Unwin use? How did he find numbers to plug into it? Is there any merit to his method?Unwin has asked himself all of these ques¬tions, and although one may not agree with his responses, he does explain them throughout each chapter. One of the more pleasant surprises in this book is how transparent his method is every step of the way. When a number is subjective (and there are many that are), Unwin says so, and he urges readers to plug in substitute values as they see fit. That's the enjoyment in his approach. In the ap¬pendix, he even offers a step-by-step tutorial for readers so they can set up spreadsheets on their computers and calculate the probability of God using their own values.Before getting to the math, Unwin reaches out to those who may be skeptical of this entire process in the first place. He explains precisely the type of God he will be referring to and dismisses many of the "proofs" of God that are popular among Christians, including Intelligent Design and the Fine-Tuned Universe argument. He says that the probability of God—whatever it will be—does not imply the literal truth of the Bible. He also boldly suggests that science-based argu-ments for or against the existence of God are "troublesome" and that they do not provide us with mean¬ingful evidence to help us answer the God-existence question. This is a radical departure from the think¬ing of scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, whose book The God De¬lusion states that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and must be treated as such.Eventually, we get to the numbers by invoking Bayesian theory. Reverend Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister and mathematician in the eighteenth century. Bayes' theory, expanded after his death, provides a systematic way to adjust a probability based on the evidence. However, to use it, a starting point is needed.Unwin decides that "maximum ignorance" on the question of God would lead to a 50-50 chance that God exists. He adds that "this is the perfect, unbiased expression of agnosticism." I'm not con¬vinced this is the proper starting place. However, to try to find a starting point upon which all people would agree would be futile. Without some initial number, though, there is no way to move forward. So we are forced to accept Unwin's 50% number so that further calculations can be made. Of all the numbers Unwin throws at the reader, I would argue that this is the most egregious one.The other numbers are used to judge various areas of evidence that could be used in support of (or against) God. On the "Divine Indicator Scale", a "D-value" of 10 is used in an area if the evidence is much more likely to be produced if God exists, a D-value of 0.1 means the evidence is much more likely to be produced if God does not exist, and a D-value of 1 means the evidence is "God-neutral". There are numbers in between as well. These values are assigned to a variety of areas that cover every¬thing from the "recognition of goodness" to the "existence of natural evil". All of this culminates in the final 67% probability of God's existence using Unwin's calculations.Unwin admits that this number is unique for him and others may achieve different results: Your assessment of the evidence may differ. So now that you have the hang of the process, you may wish to adjust the numbers as you see fit and see what results you derive. You may even have new evidentiary areas to add. (p. 129)This book makes for a wonderful thought experiment and provides fodder for some great discussions. Trying to come up with rationales for different D-values and adding other evidentiary areas to the mix will produce a wide variety of probabilities of God's existence.Once you realize the book is more philosophical than it is mathematical, it's much easier to digest. You focus less on the numbers and more on the technique.Readers will appreciate the orderly way Unwin goes about finding his answer. I suspect, though, that if his final result of God's probability of existence had been 10% instead of 67%, religious readers would not be so keen to accept his method, just as non-religious readers may be skeptical of Unwin's 67% conclusion. Atheist readers will fur¬ther object to many of Unwin's D-values (and his 50% starting point) as well as his statement that he finds "none of the atheistic explanations of com¬passion and morality highly convincing" (p. 108). However, they might appreci¬ate, as I did, his at-tempt to put God's existence to the test.The beauty of this book is that both ends of the religious spectrum can simply plug their own num¬bers (however pro-duced) into Unwin's equation to get satisfying results. That also means people on neither side are likely to change their minds as a result of reading this book. However, the discussion shifts from debating God's existence to discussing whether goodness, evil, and miracles are more likely to result in a world with God rather than without—and this is a much more satisfying conversation than the ones that usually occur between theists and atheists.Unwin does a particularly good job of warning lay readers when a more difficult math concept is approaching and reassuring them that it will be comprehensible. Also, along the way, we are treated to scripted vignettes that take place in a mall, a bevy of pop culture references, and plenty of sarcastic and humorous asides. They make the book easy to read and distinguish Unwin as a scholar who can certainly relate to nonmathemati-cal people. At the same time, while the humor was appreciated early in the book, it became irritating later on when I wanted to get to the actual math.The writing does get especially murky when Unwin discusses "faith", which he says lies out¬side the equations he had been using up to that point. He assessed his own belief probability to be 95%, meaning he was fairly certain that God existed. This, along with the 67% "reasoned truth probability" he had figured out earlier in the book, resulted in a 28% "faith factor", which Unwin says is necessary to bridge the discrepancy between the equation's result and his personal belief.Incidentally, Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, calls the book "innovative" and "an entertaining exercise in thinking." When Shermer plugged in his own numbers (again rang¬ing from 0.1 to 10) into Unwin's equation, he found that the probability of God was only 2%.2 All of Shermer's values were the same or lower than Unwin's, but it goes to show how the method described in this book can produce wildly varied results.While Unwin's book makes for easy reading, the same cannot be said about Steven Brams's Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know?In the introduction to the book, Brams writes,I know of no reasons, in principle, why some of the great religious-theological-philosophical questions of our age can¬not be made more perspicuous, their analysis more coherent, and their impli¬cations better understood by the use of formal deductive methods appropriate to the problem at hand. The problems will vary, and so will the methods, but the marriage, if consummated, could have auspicious prospects. It will, I trust, not be dull. (p. 11)Unfortunately, much of the book is dry and difficult to slog through. A bit of Unwin's humor would have benefited Brams's writing.Brams does not attempt to prove or disprove God. He uses elementary ideas from game theory to create situations between a Person (P) and God (Supreme Being, SB) and discusses how each reacts to the other in these model scenarios. A variety of 2x2 matrices are presented in each chapter to show how the games would operate given God's supposed qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, immortality, and incomprehensibility. Some of these matrices lead to paradoxical outcomes; oth¬ers are fairly straightforward.While understanding the math is not out of reach for a layperson, the book is aimed at academ¬ics interested in seeing math used in a different way. In fact, once you learn how the hypothetical games are set up, they can become something of a parlor game for even the amateur mathemati¬cian.From the outset, Brams gives the reader a crash course in how these matrices are set up. In the"Revelation Game", for example, the Person (P) has two options:1) P can believe in SB's existence2) P can not believe in SB's existenceThe Supreme Being also has two options:1) SB can reveal Himself2) SB can not reveal HimselfEach player also has a primary and secondary goal. For the Person, the primary goal is to have his be¬lief (or non-belief) confirmed by evidence (or lack thereof). The secondary goal is to "prefer to believe in SB's existence". For the Supreme Being, the primary goal is to have P believe in His existence, while the secondary goal is to not reveal Himself.These goals allow us to rank all the outcomes for each player from best (4) to worst (1). We end up with a matrix as follows (the first number in the parentheses represents the SB's ranking for that box; the second number represents P's ranking):]The question we must answer is: what is the Nash equilibrium in this case? When P believes in SB's existence, SB is better off not revealing Himself (since (4) > (3)). When P does not believe in SB's existence, the same result follows (since (2) > (1)). Thus, SB will not reveal Himself. Since P knows that to be the case, he must choose between believing (2) or not believing (3). Since (3) is ranked higher, the Nash equilibrium lies in the lower right hand corner of our matrix, showing us that the domi¬nant strategy for both is when SB does not reveal himself and P does not believe in His existence. (Kudos are due to atheists everywhere.)It takes a while for that game to make sense for those who have not been exposed to game theory before. Now, imagine 78 matrices just like that, many of which are explained in even greater depth. This is not light reading for the average Joe.In another game that Brams discusses—the famous "Chicken" game—we achieve two Nash equilibria. How does this game relate to religion? Brams lets us know that "it is not implausible to think of man and God as being occasionally on a collision course, with possibly doleful results for both players" (p. 71). He also mentions biblical stories where these situations play out, includ¬ing Cain's murder of Abel and Saul's disobeying of the prophet Samuel, both in defiance of God's will. Since this is discussed in the chapter ofi omniscience, the paradox lies in the fact that if thePerson knows that God can predict his move, the Person is better off not compromising. God will do what is necessary to avoid disaster, which in this case means compromising. As Brams writes,Thus, if P is aware of SB's omniscience, he would prevail over him yielding the Nash equilibrium (2,4) in Chicken... I call [this] the paradox of omniscience. This is a paradox, I believe, because one would not expect this superior ability of SB to impede his position—the out¬come he can ensure—in a game. Yet, it is precisely his omniscience, and P's awareness of it, which ensures that P obtains his best outcome and SB does not. (p. 71)When you think about it that way, it's a fascinating concept to play around with. You want to know what other matrix manipulations take place in the book, and you want to create similar situa¬tions on your own.Does Brams ever get the religion aspect wrong? Yes, though only in minor ways. He defines an agnostic as one who "chooses not to believe in [a Supreme Being's] existence" (p. 19). In fact, he has defined an atheist. An agnostic would not take a side in the argument since knowledge of the exis¬tence (or nonexistence) of God can never be fully obtained. Brams makes a similar mistake later in the book when he writes that an atheist "would say that the question [of God's concern for us] is meaningless because God does not exist" (p. 38). Again, atheists do not assert that God does not exist; rather, that there is no evidence of God so they do not believe He exists. These quibbles are minor, though, and bear no impact on the ideas he presents in the book.There are other compelling examples Brams uses in the book, including a thorough description of Newcomb's Problem and a fascinating matrix on the Punishment Game (where P chooses whether or not to sin, and SB decides whether or not to punish him).Neither book will change your mind about God, but both offer novel ways of bringing math into the world of theology. This is a potentially ill-fated effort since the authors attempt to bring together a field that relies on certainty and proofs with one where both are elusive. However, both books usher in a novel way to debate the nature of God and the supernatural within a mathematical framework. It's rare to see a book about religion that can speak to multiple faith positions. Here we have two of them. Both can be cited by either side of the argument convincingly, and both will allow for a much more fulfilling conversation with people on opposite sides of the religious divide.

[Alphons]

ne razumem, jel ovo topic za matematičko-tehničko-štaveć dokazivanje (ne)postojanja Gospodina, ili topic o literaturi koja se bavi tom tematikom ?ps - ovo gore mi ne pada na pamet da čitam, ali hvala na naslovima, videću šta ima u pdfu od toga ;)

[hattori]

na ovo pitanje je vec dat odgovor!

[расејан]

Мени је потпуно без везе да се доказује нешто што је постављено тако да се нит може доказати нити оповргнути. И притом дограђивано пар миленијума да буде отпорно на логику, хранило десетине хиљада професионалаца посебно обучаваних да излазе на крај са овом расправом. Не видим чему, а и за речене професионалце (без професионалки) се зна шта раде кад су докони.Питање које сам, уместо тога, себи поставио је било "кад би се доказало да га/их има или нема, шта би се променило". Одговорио сам себи "ништа". Тј било би неких друштвених кретања, било би неке реакције, са незнаним бројем мртвих, али не видим да би овакав или онакав доказ био разлог да ја код себе нешто мењам.

[woodooinstalater]

Sta se napravi od preturanja po starim knjigama i zaostalim casopisima :( Skeniranje obaska.Onaj gore (ne ON , nego Alfons) sto mu ne pada na pamet da cita prikaz, a 'oce da potrazi pdf-ove ne razume, Hattori zna...@Rasejan:Ma nema ga, garant, popovska izmisljotina, nego mi nesto drugo pade na pamet. Kao vrsta smo doprli toliko daleko u Kosmos da mozemo da budemo sigurni da u tom delu nema nikoga. Osim ako se ne oglasavaju iz nekih nama nepoznatih razloga - od toga da su mozda tek amebe, do toga da im nije do baktanja s nama.Ako su negde tamo daleko, i ako se sutra pojave ovde na Zemlji, prosta je cinjenica da ce morati da dodju iz takve daljine za cije je savladjivanje potrebno energije (bilo koje nama nepoznate vrste, mentalne, psihicke, alfabetagama plazmaticno jonizujuce) dovoljno da se napravi jedan pristojan Suncev sistem. Ili razbuca, svejedno.Ako to mogu, jedna od alternativa je da ih odmah nazovemo - bogovima. I tako se prema njima ponasamo.I tu negde lezi mrtva petlja koju ova dvojica knjigopisaca (zlo)upotrebljavaju: preskocili su 'definiciju' boga, jer je kao sto kazes niti ima, niti moze biti i drze se terminologije superiornog kojom su, 'ladno, mogli da krenu u dokazivanje postojanja ubermensch-a. Ili nas ostalih

[mei]

ne razumem, jel ovo topic za matematičko-tehničko-štaveć dokazivanje (ne)postojanja Gospodina, ili topic o literaturi koja se bavi tom tematikom ?

ovo je dobro pitanje, i mene isto zanima pošto se nauka ne bavi dokazivanjem (ne)postojanja Boga. što se tiče ove dve knjige, nisam ih pročitala. na osnovu pregleda knjiga koje je postavio Woodooinstalater, prvo što mi pada na pamet je:i) Stephen Unwin The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth- liči na uputstvo kako izračunati potpuno subjektivni stepen uverenja o postojanju Boga koristeći Bajesovu statistiku.od same početne a priori hipoteze kako je verovatnoća da Bog postoji 50%, preko daljih parametera korišćenih u računu su proizvoljni. tako je i rezultat od 67% subjektivni stepen uverenja autora da Bog postoji. može biti zanimljivo jedino kao igra čitaocu raspoloženom za račun da posmatra kako se rezultat menja u zavisnosti od promene parametara, ali nešto više od toga ne.sad ću malo kao Dawkins: isti račun se može upotrebiti da se izračuna subjektivni stepen uverenja da postoji Špageti čudovište ;-).ii) Steven Brams Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know?-ovo isto može da bude zanimljivo čitaocima što se same teorije igara tiče, tj. da se igraju malo sa računom. ali umesto Boga možemo da stavimo na mesto racionalnog igrača i bilo kakvo drugo nadnaravno biće i da dobijemo iste ishode na osnovu teorije igara.drugim rečima, ako je u pitanju samo igranje sa jednačinama i svakojakim (nenaučnim) modelima, onda O.K - to je igranje. ali nema dobijanja nikavih naučnih istina ovde, niti je u pitanju nauka.

[woodooinstalater]

ovo je dobro pitanje, i mene isto zanima pošto se nauka ne bavi dokazivanjem (ne)postojanja Boga. što se tiče ove dve knjige, nisam ih pročitala. na osnovu pregleda knjiga koje je postavio Woodooinstalater, prvo što mi pada na pamet je:i) Stephen Unwin The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth- liči na uputstvo kako izračunati potpuno subjektivni stepen uverenja o postojanju Boga koristeći Bajesovu statistiku.od same početne a priori hipoteze kako je verovatnoća da Bog postoji 50%, preko daljih parametera korišćenih u računu su proizvoljni. tako je i rezultat od 67% subjektivni stepen uverenja autora da Bog postoji. može biti zanimljivo jedino kao igra čitaocu raspoloženom za račun da posmatra kako se rezultat menja u zavisnosti od promene parametara, ali nešto više od toga ne.sad ću malo kao Dawkins: isti račun se može upotrebiti da se izračuna subjektivni stepen uverenja da postoji Špageti čudovište ;-).ii) Steven Brams Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know?-ovo isto može da bude zanimljivo čitaocima što se same teorije igara tiče, tj. da se igraju malo sa računom. ali umesto Boga možemo da stavimo na mesto racionalnog igrača i bilo kakvo drugo nadnaravno biće i da dobijemo iste ishode na osnovu teorije igara.drugim rečima, ako je u pitanju samo igranje sa jednačinama i svakojakim (nenaučnim) modelima, onda O.K - to je igranje. ali nema dobijanja nikavih naučnih istina ovde, niti je u pitanju nauka.

Fino.Sudarise nam se postovi, inace bi videla da sam i ja napisao isto, drugim recima, naravno.Ali jedno ne prolazi: nemas prava, ama bas nikakvog, da sa nebeskih visina, danas - 2010. godine odredjujes sta je nauka, a sta ne ili sta su nenaucni metodi, a sta nisu. Reference na stranu, a ja sam ih pazljivo dao, bas za ovakav slucaj, ali nauka, danas, je isto toliko, ako ne i vise, oblast koja se ne da odrediti, definisati ili strpati u neke okvire. I to zato sto u tom slucaju ne bi bila nauka.Knjige o kojima je rec su slagvort, smatrao sam da nema nista lose u tome da ljudi ovde vide i nesto takvo, ali besprizivno presudjivati je - nenaucno :P

[mei]

Fino.Sudarise nam se postovi, inace bi videla da sam i ja napisao isto, drugim recima, naravno.Ali jedno ne prolazi: nemas prava, ama bas nikakvog, da sa nebeskih visina, danas - 2010. godine odredjujes sta je nauka, a sta ne ili sta su nenaucni metodi, a sta nisu. Reference na stranu, a ja sam ih pazljivo dao, bas za ovakav slucaj, ali nauka, danas, je isto toliko, ako ne i vise, oblast koja se ne da odrediti, definisati ili strpati u neke okvire. I to zato sto u tom slucaju ne bi bila nauka.Knjige o kojima je rec su slagvort, smatrao sam da nema nista lose u tome da ljudi ovde vide i nesto takvo, ali besprizivno presudjivati je - nenaucno :P

pa ja imam malo problema i sa teorijom struna što se okvira (prirodne) nauke tiče ;-). slažem se, nema ništa loše u tome što si postavio ove dve knjige.

[woodooinstalater]

pa ja imam malo problema i sa teorijom struna što se okvira (prirodne) nauke tiče ;-). slažem se, nema ništa loše u tome što si postavio ove dve knjige.

[Indy]

Mene ovo pitanje iz naslova podseća na nešto iz Južne Afrike. Vodič nam je pokazivala okolinu, i u jednom momentu je objasnila kako se stena povrh Astal-planine zove Lavlja Glava. Na to smo zbunjeno reagovali, pošto dotična stenčuga baš ni malo ne liči ni na lavlju glavu niti išta prepoznatljivo... ona nam onda spremno objasni: kad se dovoljno popije, onda liči na Lavlju Glavu.Tako mislim da važi i za Boga. Za trezne, to je gomila svega što numemo da objasnimo na 1 mestu; al' kad se umajčimo, pa još uz neku adekvatnu pojeziju, sve to nerazumljivo postaje namah razumljivo, a odaziva se na "Bože, Bože..."PS. Ovo je provereno naučnom metodom.

[Zmitjkoe]

Oops, zaboravih da odgovorim na temu:Boba i da ima, trebalo bi ga ubiti.

[braca]

Meni to lici na onog sto nas je davio sa piramidama i svetim laktovima. I on je nesto racunao.

[mei]

supstance i vernički rokenrol su prebačani na drugo mesto.

[pt 2.0]

pa ja imam malo problema i sa teorijom struna što se okvira (prirodne) nauke tiče ;-).

ako te ne mrzi - zasto? :)@tema - boga ima.

[mei]

ako te ne mrzi - zasto? :)

teorija superstruna nema za sada konkretna predviđanja koja se eskperimentalno mogu proveriti, pa je u tom smislu neopovrgljiva.s druge strane, jedan deo teoretičara struna dopušta postojanje beskonačno mnogo univerzuma (string theory landscape). u beskonačnom broju rešenja, sve je moguće.na primer: ako U LHC-iju otkriju Higgsa, to će da se uklopi u teoriju struna. ako ga ne otkriju, to će takođe da se uklopi u teorju struna. dok će Standarni model fizike čestica u drugom slučaju biti u problemu, tj. definitivno će biti nepotpuni opis prirode na tim energijama. drugim rečima, šta god da se otkrije, ili ne otkrije eskperimentalno, teorija struna, na način na koji je konstruisana,preživljava. to je taj moj mali praktični problem sa ovom teorijom za sada (ovo moja eksperimentalna strana govori ;-)) ali opet, volim ekstra dimenzije, zanimljivo mi je da vidim kakvih sve modela ima, gravitacija je tu napokon zajedno sa elementarnim česticama itd. fizičari su takođe podeljeni,od ljubitelja, preko neutralnih, do onih teoretičara koji iz najbolje namere i sopstvenog iskustva savetuju studente da ne gube vreme na oblast nauke gde najverovatnije neće moći mnogo da doprinesu.