Pick a non-theist's brain

[Peter Kirby]

Ask me anything about theology, history, or whatever. But be warned that my answers might not be accompanied by proofs.

And 5 pearls to the first person who asks an interesting question about computational linguistics. I decide what's interesting.

This is not a debate thread, but you can hear what I think if you like!

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby, who is riding out the brain-picking wave

[technomage]

So what happens if computational linguists find out there is no logical basis to natural language--if they discover that the complexity of the algorhythm is equal to or greater than the complexity of the language, or (more conclusively) if they discover that the problem is NP-complete?

(I'm not actually trying for the pearls ... I just think there's an irrational factor in human intelligence that cannot be modeled, and I'm betting that irrational factor is also involved in the processing of natural language.)

[Gilgaron]

I was considering asking what computational linguistics was, but that wouldn't be an interesting question...

Howabout, of what relevance is computational linguistics to theology?

[Peter Kirby]

I was considering asking what computational linguistics was, but that wouldn't be an interesting question...

One example of a computational linguistics application would be an algorithm for doing this:

pronoun aux-verb verb gerund pronoun adjective noun verb conjunction pronoun aux-verb verb article adjective noun

Which is a way of POS-tagging your sentence above (part of speech tagging).

Howabout, of what relevance is computational linguistics to theology?

That depends on how much language in general and texts in particular is important to theology. Computational methods may yet yield new insights into language, and continuing work is being done on figuring things out about texts using computational linguistics.

How would you feel about a Greek New Testament that made use of cladistics for forming a tree of manuscripts in order to make text-critical comparisons? Stephen C. Carlson is working in that area.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

So what happens if computational linguists find out there is no logical basis to natural language--if they discover that the complexity of the algorhythm is equal to or greater than the complexity of the language, or (more conclusively) if they discover that the problem is NP-complete?

(I'm not actually trying for the pearls ... I just think there's an irrational factor in human intelligence that cannot be modeled, and I'm betting that irrational factor is also involved in the processing of natural language.)

The first question above is whether "an irrational factor" can ever be mathematically modeled. To some degree, it certainly can be, just as much as rational factors. A model of irrational behavior need no more be irrational than a model of criminology need be criminal.

However, maybe there is a certain class of irrational action that could not be modeled mathematically. Some examples could prime my imagination here. (Of course we are pretty bad at modelling human behavior mathematically, either rational or irrational, at the moment. What makes the irrational different?)

An NP-complete problem is neither unsolvable nor hopeless. An example is the travelling salesman problem (find the shortest route connecting the fifty state capitals): there is at least one algorithm for figuring it out, but it just so happens to be O(N!). Yet it is possible to come up with algorithms that give approximate or heuristic answers to this problem: and quite probably better answers than a human could come up with in equal time. One analogy here is chess, or a more complex game such as Civilization 3, which a computer can play well (and with chess, extremely well) without being able to prove absolutely that the moves made are the best possible.

More importantly, computational linguistics is not all about solving the complete problem of "understanding language." It's also about:

1. Searching the Internet
2. Answering a subset of questions automatically
3. Classifying texts or generating metadata
4. Determining part of speech and lexical form
5. Computer-aided translation
6. Determining frequencies of grammatical forms, words, etc., over time
7. Spell-checking, grammar-checking
8. Creating concordances and cross-references
9. Cladistics and textual criticism
10. Stylometrics, the measurable artifacts of a person's style

Just to name a few applications.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Bagger_Vance]

What is your single biggest beef with religion or in other words what is your main reason for not believing in God?

[Peter Kirby]

What is your single biggest beef with religion or in other words what is your main reason for not believing in God?
I believe that existence is fundamentally mathematical, not necessarily personal. Basically what Spinoza and Einstein believed. To be cute about it, if God exists, God is an equation. And no, I don't say that I can prove this; the only possible proof would be a Theory of Everything, and I am not optimistic that humanity will ever discover that. The belief that existence is fundamentally mathematical is my "credo ut intelligam," the principle under which I understand evidence and, thus, seek to understand the principle.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[technomage]

I believe that existence is fundamentally mathematical, not necessarily personal. Basically what Spinoza and Einstein believed. To be cute about it, if God exists, God is an equation.

:hehe: If you ever get a chance, you need to hear Jordin kare's "Unified Field Theory." Kare doesn't have the best singing voice, but the song itself is a good laugh along those lines.

The belief that existence is fundamentally mathematical is my "credo ut intelligam," the principle under which I understand evidence and, thus, seek to understand the principle.

Hmmm ... don't you run into a problem with equating the "map" with the "terrain?" After all, mathematics is not philosophically necessary to the Universe or to existence: it's just a man-made method of quantifying phenomena.

[Scruffy]

What would an expert in computational linguistics make of this website?

http://www.meru.org/

[Peter Kirby]

Hmmm ... don't you run into a problem with equating the "map" with the "terrain?" After all, mathematics is not philosophically necessary to the Universe or to existence: it's just a man-made method of quantifying phenomena.
What I am assuming is that the terrain is amenable to mapping, and indeed that the elements of the map--elevation, latitude, longitude--represent the way that the terrain is. To pick a better analogy, I'm assuming that there is a machine inside the black box, and that the machine is operating by an algorithm in discrete steps. And I am indeed supposing that an algorithm is that by which the black box works, regardless of whether there is anyone to play around with the box and try to figure out bits of what is going on inside. This is the creed by which I make sense of things, that the universe works mathematically.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

What would an expert in computational linguistics make of this website?
She or he would probably say that it's as nonsensical as other attempts at finding "Bible codes."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[technomage]

She or he would probably say that it's as nonsensical as other attempts at finding "Bible codes."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby
Did you know that the "Bible Code" software works with other text passages?

I ran the EULA from Microsoft Windows XP Pro, and found "All your base...."

:hehe:

[Joveia]

What is your biggest inductive or deductive reason against the Christian interpretation of God - apart from the lack of evidence (presumably)?

[Peter Kirby]

What is your biggest inductive or deductive reason against the Christian interpretation of God - apart from the lack of evidence (presumably)?
Hello Joveia,

I prefer to define myself more by what I am, than what I am not.

I know, that means that "non-theist" is not my preferred epithet. You may call me a kosmanthanist. This neologism comes from the Greek words for "kosmos," meaning world or universe, and "manthanos," literally meaning "learning," but also the etymological root of our word "mathematics." A kosmanthanist, therefore, is one who believes that the universe is fundamentally mathematical, that mathematics is the ordering principle of all things.

What is the Christian conception of God?

I ask because the answer to that question will allow me to figure out whether it is internally consistent to be both a kosmanthanist and a Christian.

And I want to figure that out because typically we string pearls of wisdom onto our web of knowledge so long as they don't rip the fabric of that web too badly. If it turns out that it will do so, then we want to be very sure before we "go out, sell everything, and purchase" that pearl of great price. Also, if everything in the existence web is overturned, then we should want to make sure we've taken the time to gather the materials for making an entirely new web before scrapping the old one; normally, we might scrap just a part of the web and rearrange it for the new pearl, if it makes that part of the web look better. To persuade someone, you want to suggest that the new bit actually fits better with bits they already accept, than would the negation of the new bit. (For example: if I wanted to persuade you that it's a good idea to lie sometimes, I might appeal to your ideas that it is good to protect others or oneself, sometimes with a lie; if I appealed to the idea that hurting others, with lies, is good, then I would have a much rougher go of it.)

Perhaps now you are thinking, "That doesn't answer my question! Give me an argument against the Christian God!"

If you are thinking that, you are basically assuming that I am attempting to persuade you. In such a scenario, I wouldn't necessarily be giving my own personal ratiocination. I would be trying to figure out what appeals to you, and then trying to persuade you that such entails the non-existence of the Christian God. But persuading others is not what this thread is about, although I have attempted it from time to time.

My creed is that the universe is fundamentally mathematical. Can one get from there, and other beliefs, to the existence of the Christian God? Contrariwise, can one get from there, and other beliefs, to the non-existence of the Christian God? The latter is the less interesting question, as it would only persuade kosmanthanists not to be Christians. The former is interesting, because it might persuade a kosmanthanist to become a Christian. Neither can be answered without delineating a specific Christian conception of God.

Perhaps you notice a certain symmetry from the above post: Your creed is that--well, I don't want to put words in your mouth about your most foundational beliefs, so I will call your creed X. Can one get from X, and other beliefs, to kosmanthanism? Contrariwise, can one get from X, and other beliefs, to the negation of kosmanthanism? The latter is the less interesting question, as it would only persuade an Xian not to be a kosmanthanist. The former is interesting, because it might persuade an Xian to become a kosmanthanist. Neither can be answered without knowing what the foundational creed, X, is.

Does this place the Xian and the kosmanthanist at a parity? Or, as the philosophers like to put it, are Xianism and kosmanthanism incommensurate? That is, each can be evaluated on its own terms, but there is no way to evaluating between the two?

These cannot be answered without knowing what X is, because Xianism may imply kosmanthanism, or kosmanthanism may imply Xianism. In which case, kosmanthanism, or Xianism, is superior, respectively. If they both imply the other, then neither is superior, but they work together. If neither implies the other, then you have incommensurability.

What does one do about incommensurability? One usually sticks to what one has. If one is unsatisfied with what one has, then one might adopt another creed in order to gain something more. I am satisfied with kosmanthanism and my existing beliefs, but someone might come along and present something that appears more satisfying. That would be an even strong presentation if I were unsatisfied, which I am not.

This is about as far I can go without knowing what particular Christian conception of God is intended.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

PS-- Could I get an icon for kosmanthanist? I could do the artwork if it's okay. It would be cool to have a descriptor that actually fits!

[Joveia]

I think your idea that the universe is fundamentally mathematical to be very interesting. I would have to consider it more carefully before I could say that it was incompatible with my ideal of God. It is possible that God himself is a mathematical expression of some basic need for symmetry in existence or something like that[1] - of course God is also personal, which would seem to contradict a mathematical expression of him.

[1] I had an idea the other day which I no longer hold, but that everything that exists must be in some kind of mathematical equivalency to everything that does not exist - but potentially can exist. Hence the existence of an infinite God is necessary to balance out the existence of an infinite number of things which don't exist but it is logically possible for them to exist. Of course this implies a very questionable definition of what it means for something to not exist, but I think a valid ontological/mathematical necessity of God might be something LIKE that... perhaps.

[markporter]

What led you to define your beliefs in the terms you do? How did you come about them?

[Peter Kirby]

What led you to define your beliefs in the terms you do? How did you come about them?

The person who first expressed such an idea to me, Andrew Lias, once wrote: "Radical neo-Platonism goes a step further in supposing that reality itself is fundamentally indistinguishable from mathematics. . . . It should be noted that RN-P is a radical proposition that has several major barriers that ought to give people pause before embracing it. The most significant being that it is intrinsically unamenable to empirical investigation. RN-P is a metaphysical proposition that can never receive any form of scientific validation. I grant a fairly deep contingent acceptance of it on the weight of evidence that is, admittedly, circumstantial and logical (bearing in mind that a logical proposition is only as strong as its initial premises). I would never, however, dream of trying to get others to accept the veracity of RN-P. The evidence in favor of it is strong enough to convince me but not, in my opinion, nearly strong enough for me to expect it to compel others."

It is for this characteristic, that few if any widely held premises would lead by a sequence of deduction to the conclusion that mathematics is at the bottom of everything, that I call this my faith.

It is my faith because it reflects what I've thought in my heart for a long time; further, it is my faith because it allows me to interpret the data available too me in a useful way; and this interpretation has led to elegant partial solutions to the mathematics of existence. It is, thus, familiar, practical, and aesthetic as a pre-evidential belief, a belief that allows one to identify and interpret evidence.

I suppose that I could point to a beautiful illustration of mathematics in nature, as a picture says a thousand words:

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/glassy-bg.jpg

A nautilus shell spiral.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/~drorbn/Gallery/Plants/Cauliflower-1_640.jpg

A fractal-like cauliflower.

http://www.peterkirby.com/milkyway.jpg

The milky way with spiral arms.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[shunyadragon]

I believe that existence is fundamentally mathematical, not necessarily personal. Basically what Spinoza and Einstein believed. To be cute about it, if God exists, God is an equation. And no, I don't say that I can prove this; the only possible proof would be a Theory of Everything, and I am not optimistic that humanity will ever discover that. The belief that existence is fundamentally mathematical is my "credo ut intelligam," the principle under which I understand evidence and, thus, seek to understand the principle.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

I agree and disagree. If creation is a reflection of God than the nature of God may be deduced to certain degree by science in determining the nature of creation. I do not feel Einstein and Spinosa denied the existence of God as such, but the hedged and presented a much fuzzier picture than theists.

Computational liguistics is limited in a similar manner, because it simply evaluates language and its relationships to the objective nature of the beast, history, culture and the environment. Its ability to deduce things would be true regardless of whether there was a spiritual dimension beyond that which we may objectively observe. I believe that beyond this it is ineffective, and the conclusions would be the same if nature or nurture in creation were true.

How would you go beyond the objective and subjective methodology of science and math to comprehend the nature of existence?

The image we see in the mirror is the same regardless of whether there is a God or not.

[Peter Kirby]

I agree and disagree. If creation is a reflection of God than the nature of God may be deduced to certain degree by science in determining the nature of creation. I do not feel Einstein and Spinosa denied the existence of God as such, but the hedged and presented a much fuzzier picture than theists.

Computational liguistics is limited in a similar manner, because it simply evaluates language and its relationships to the objective nature of the beast, history, culture and the environment. Its ability to deduce things would be true regardless of whether there was a spiritual dimension beyond that which we may objectively observe. I believe that beyond this it is ineffective, and the conclusions would be the same if nature or nurture in creation were true.

How would you go beyond the objective and subjective methodology of science and math to comprehend the nature of existence?

The image we see in the mirror is the same regardless of whether there is a God or not.

God. The big G. The subject of our preoccupation here. But not the subject of my faith. G or no G, my belief is the same. If God could be defined, and if God could be defined in a way that is amenable, in theory, to mathematical expression, then God has a place in my ontology.

And I would have absolutely no problem with, for example, someone asserting something like, "God is the wave form equation which governs the existence of the heavens and the earth." If that's God, great! If not, oh well.

I know, I know, 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' It is my belief that all these things can potentially be described with mathematics. This cannot be proven, hence it is my faith.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[shunyadragon]

God. The big G. The subject of our preoccupation here. But not the subject of my faith. G or no G, my belief is the same. If God could be defined, and if God could be defined in a way that is amenable, in theory, to mathematical expression, then God has a place in my ontology.

And I would have absolutely no problem with, for example, someone asserting something like, "God is the wave form equation which governs the existence of the heavens and the earth." If that's God, great! If not, oh well.

I know, I know, 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' It is my belief that all these things can potentially be described with mathematics. This cannot be proven, hence it is my faith.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

The car your driving here has a Dodge steering wheel and a Rambler brake and accelerator. Fortunately you applied the brake early.

God would not be the wave, if God exists. God would be the source and the wave would reflect the nature of God.

I believe that the problem with mathematics is that it quantifies well, but does not relate well to the dimension of existence I would call 'quality'. MAth can be a wonderful tool, especially in some of the more abstract dynamic explorations of hypothetical situations. My knowledge of math is not deep, and I can do little more than appreciate the potential of math.

Great pics!!!!!!

[Scruffy]

She or he would probably say that it's as nonsensical as other attempts at finding "Bible codes."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Did you...even bother going to the website?

It's your right to judge books by their cover...but I for one have little respect for people who do so.

Q: Does this research have to do with coding in the Bible?

A: Yes and no. Meru research was conducted independently of the statistically discovered "codes in the Bible". Our findings suggest that prophetic claims made for these coded patterns are not valid, but that the letter-patterns themselves are real, and are better explained by the geometric models suggested by Meru research.

Our models show that what appears to be coding in the Bible is a natural result of the way the letter-text was originally woven. (See below.) This form of weaving is not mysterious, and is very similar to techniques that were known to have been used in the ancient world.

But hey...believe what you want. People always do.

kind thoughts,
Scruffy the janitor

[Peter Kirby]

Did you...even bother going to the website?
Yes. Did I give it a day of my life? No.

Everyone judges a book "by the cover." That judgment is whether or not to give it a thorough read. If you can't do this, ... well, there's no point in stating a counterfactual. People can get a decent idea of what is worth looking into much further. This, of course, annoys panhandlers of nonsense who want attention.

(The efforts of people like JP Holding and James Randi to expose some of these people is salutary, but not everyone wants to spend their lives as a debunker. They want to get on with things that appear fruitful.)

But hey...believe what you want. People always do.
This is the kind of statement that appears meaningful but actually has no content, like "That's just your opinion."

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

[John from Ebla]

Howabout, would it be labour in vain to use computaional linguistics on the greek New Testament and Hebrew Tanankh.

The sciptures are not an objective entity, a thing "out there". The scriptures exist in the realm of experience-that is, people living according to the new testament teaching-having the hope of the promised resurrection, via faithfully believing in Jesus as the Son of God and the only Messiah.

Then the tanankh that ancient Israel lived under was the realm experience of the Torah standard of works. So what relevance is computational linguistics to the realm of experience?

Kind Regards
John from Ebla :ahem: