From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Faith
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:01:52 GMT

In article <BvCu0J.959@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Since I have not figured out any way to balance my checkbook without defining
>>2 as 1+1, I do so first.
>But, this defining 1 + 1 = 2. Is that not a sense of faith? You define it
>true from your perspective and then put it to good use and since it works
>well for you  ... Isn't this really putting faith in it being true and gaining
>rewards for your faith?

Well, it's certainly not "putting faith in it being true", since it's not true.
I don't understand what "true from your perspective" means.  I only use the
word "true" or "false" for things which are phrased in such a manner as to
apply to all perspectives.

As for "is that faith", isn't everything faith, by this definition?  It's not
obvious how your definition is useful.

>>>What, no faith in mathematicians?
>>You got it.
>But, you said you define 1 + 1 = 2 as true first, in order that you can
>balance your checkbook. I do the same. This isn't faith? What would happen if
>you defined 1 + 1 = 5?

I define 1+1=2 to balance my checkbook, because I don't know how to balance my
checkbook in any other way.

>>I'm not sure what you mean by "known".  If you mean what I think you mean, I
>>deny there is any math which is known.
>Ah, so math IS transcendent of knowledge?

It looks to me that you are not using the word "known" in the same way twice
in a row.

>>Furthermore, even if there is, you are
>>mixing up two different usages of "true".  One usage of true is to say a
>>statement is true or false.  Math, not being a statement, cannot be true or
>>false in this sense.
>OK, but being a body of knowledge, it can be judged to be valid or invalid,
>right?

I don't know what you mean by "valid" and "invalid".  (I know what I mean by
those words, but you appear to not be using them the same way.)

>>I don't understand what you mean by "cope with this possibility of failure".
>>If you mean "how do I keep from being emotionally
>>disturbed by the possibility the laws of physics will change so my alarm clock
>>doesn't work", the answer is "Is there some reason you expect every
>>uncertainty to be emotionally upsetting to begin with?"
>But, if the laws of physics suddenly failed tomorrow, wouldn't you be
>emotionally upset? I would. I have faith that most of physics is correct or
>valid and will continue to be so in my lifetime, but if this turns out to
>be not the case, yes I would find that to be quite disturbing.

I do not experience every uncertainty as emotionally disturbing, only some of
them.  The possibility that the laws of physics will change so as to break my
alarm clock is not one of those.

What you say is that you would be disturbed _when_ physics changes.  This is
not the same as saying that the _possibility_ that it might change will
disturb you _now_.  It would probably bother me, too--after it happens, not
before.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)