Angus Menuge: I don’t see any reason from these amazing enhancements of the complexity of these [computer] systems to think that the systems would move from not having subjective awareness to having it or from moving to true intentionality about anything beyond themselves.
Mathematician Kurt Gödel showed that there is an infinite number of truths that are provably unprovable. That’s bad news for scientism, though not for science.
Creativity is what we don’t know. Once it is reduced to a formula a computer can use, it is not creative any more, by definition.
Robert J. Marks sometimes uses the paradox of the smallest “uninteresting” number to illustrate proof by contradiction — that is, by creating paradoxes
Chaitin: I have a pessimistic vision which I hope is completely wrong, that the bureaucracies are like a cancer — the ones that control research and funding for research and counting how much you’ve been publishing. I’ve noticed that at universities, for example, the administrative personnel are gradually taking all the best buildings and expanding. So I think that the bureaucracy and the rules and regulations increases to the point that it sinks the society.
More scandalous still, Gödel was not a Darwinist: “I believe that mechanism in biology is a prejudice of our time which will be disproved.”
Chaitin offers some thoughts on Georg Cantor and Srinivasa Ramanujan as well, both of whom thought that their math discoveries were divinely inspired.
How about juggling, riding a unicycle, and playing bongo? Or catching criminals or cracking safes? … Many people would be very surprised by the things that matter most to many famous scientists. Hint: Many are not atheists.
Walter Bradley has been a key figure in the ID community. The biography, For a Greater Purpose, is by Robert J. Marks and William Dembski.
Marks: For example, if I burn a book to ashes and scatter the ashes around, have I destroyed information? Does it make a difference if there’s another copy of the book?
Enrique Blair: Very tricky, those photons.
At Vox: Most papers fail to replicate for totally predictable reasons.
Marks points out that politicians who insist that their beliefs represent science might be surprised by the checkered history of that view.
Robert J. Marks and Oxford mathematician John Lennox discuss that in connection with Lennox’s new book, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (2020).
Marks: It’s very easy to determine if who you’re talking to is a computer. You just ask them to compute the square root of 30 or something, because a human would take a while to get the square root of 30.