God and AI
Hello, thank you very much for the overwhelming response.
I have a few questions.
1. This may sound silly to you, but we are seeing artificial intelligence, and it is certainly likely that in 100 years there will be powerful intelligent beings here who will ask who created them, and they will assume that the one who created them was one infinite, most wise God, etc. While we know that these beings are probably smarter, stronger, and more alive than us, I therefore have no reason to assume anything about God, his abilities, or how many Gods there are, right?
2. In what you define as “God left the earth,” in your understanding of quantum mechanics, does God still exist (and this should not change)?
3. If we summarize all our information in percentages: Was the giving of the Torah to pagan people a fantasy (x percentage of chance) (this is multiplied by the percentage of chance that…) Was there really a specific Torah because each part of the people had something different (ej’s theory) until the editor came along, and that’s assuming he didn’t add too much. All of this is multiplied by the chance that when the Torah scroll was lost, they didn’t change anything, etc….
How would you estimate the percentage of chance that what we have is true, and if you could weight each part so that it is double, it would still be a reasonable chance?
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- No. The creatures I know so far don’t ask themselves anything. They just transmit electrical currents, which you interpret as a question, or a calculation, or a thought. They also don’t give any answers to themselves, but perhaps to us. I don’t see anything that’s starting to move in a different direction at all, and so all these apocalyptic predictions seem delusional and disconnected to me. But when we encounter the phenomenon, we’ll be able to decide who was right. How does all this relate to God? The devil knows.
- Absolutely not. I have explained more than once that quantum theory also does not allow for divine involvement.
- In the witness argument of the day, I dealt extensively with truth and instability and the first premise (and also in the series I am now giving on faith).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would be happy to refer to which lessons the rabbi talks about the above witness argument
Happy New Year
The next lesson should deal with this.
Regarding 3. I didn't mean the witness' argument. I meant personally, there is a set of beliefs here that together create the full picture that exists with us, so if you were to detail each one and give “credibility percentages” what would it look like? Because when everything is only “probable” I'm interested in what number I'll arrive at when I multiply the probabilities
Thank you very much
This is not a multiplication of probabilities. This is exactly the mistake. Think about R’ Chaim's argument about three signs of a fool, or every assumption three times in halacha. If you were to multiply probabilities you wouldn't get very far.
I have a column about this, about following the majority in the Bar (Why don't you multiply the probability of each judge being right).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
