I see how this applies to different deities of the same complexity. What about the Maimonidean-type “negative theology”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology#In_the_Jewish_tradition ? Basically this implies a perfectly simple diety “of reference class size 1”. It seems harder to say that the hypothesis is arbitrary in this case.
No, that’s why I’m asking ;). The reference you point to certainly provides no immediate answer (pretty much a placeholder); I agree that simplicity can be fake, but if you define something as
“God’s existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute… still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe… When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; …it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite”
it sounds like it’s perfectly simple, by definition. BTW, even if wrong, Maimonides should get credit for recognizing the virtue of simplicity ;). This was 14th century.
Anyway, my intellectual toolkit is not sufficient to figure this out from the moment, so I am asking for help regurgitating this a little, if anyone wants to take this up as an exercise. The question does have persona significance to me.
“Perfectly simple” means “the mathematics is simple”, not “the explanation does not have many apparent details”. This so-called definition is a classic example of a mysterious answer—an actually simple deity could be described by positive attributes.
What properties does “Math” have that would justify calling it a “deity”?
It contains the almighty hammer Mjölnir. It is omniscient. (By volume—sure, it knows all wrong things that can possibly be represented too but hey, every other deity I have studied is defined as something outright logically incoherent so they can’t talk.) So in conclusion… not much justification at all until you worship it a bit and it starts to get personified.
Actually, back up: since when is mathematics (the human endeavor) simple
If you left it at this I’d say never...
from a mathematical perspective?
… but I’ll never cease to be amazed at what a mathematian will describe as “simple” or even “trivial” when he is in his mathematical perspective groove!
So a math professor is going through the proof of a theorem on the blackboard in front of his class. Partway through, a student stops him to ask about the justification for a particular step. The professor furrows his brow, stares at the chalkboard for a moment, then walks briskly from the room. Twenty minutes later he returns, his chalk worn down to a nub, and announces triumphantly, “it’s obvious”.
I know this one as: professor walks into a class, scrawls an equation on the blackboard, and announces “I’m sure you’ll all agree that this is obvious.” Then he stops, stares at it, walks away, comes back 20 minutes later and says “Yes, that’s right, it is obvious.”
Twenty minutes later he returns, his chalk worn down to a nub, and announces triumphantly, “it’s obvious”.
Exactly. I wonder if anyone has a good link to a particularly witty or authoritative expression of this parody. I find it warrants reference rather frequently.
I see how this applies to different deities of the same complexity. What about the Maimonidean-type “negative theology”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology#In_the_Jewish_tradition ? Basically this implies a perfectly simple diety “of reference class size 1”. It seems harder to say that the hypothesis is arbitrary in this case.
Are you sure?
No, that’s why I’m asking ;). The reference you point to certainly provides no immediate answer (pretty much a placeholder); I agree that simplicity can be fake, but if you define something as
“God’s existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute… still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe… When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; …it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite”
it sounds like it’s perfectly simple, by definition. BTW, even if wrong, Maimonides should get credit for recognizing the virtue of simplicity ;). This was 14th century.
Anyway, my intellectual toolkit is not sufficient to figure this out from the moment, so I am asking for help regurgitating this a little, if anyone wants to take this up as an exercise. The question does have persona significance to me.
“Perfectly simple” means “the mathematics is simple”, not “the explanation does not have many apparent details”. This so-called definition is a classic example of a mysterious answer—an actually simple deity could be described by positive attributes.
Indeed, I think we could end up calling the simple deity by his holiest of names: Math.
What properties does “Math” have that would justify calling it a “deity”?
Actually, back up: since when is mathematics (the human endeavor) simple from a mathematical perspective?
It contains the almighty hammer Mjölnir. It is omniscient. (By volume—sure, it knows all wrong things that can possibly be represented too but hey, every other deity I have studied is defined as something outright logically incoherent so they can’t talk.) So in conclusion… not much justification at all until you worship it a bit and it starts to get personified.
If you left it at this I’d say never...
… but I’ll never cease to be amazed at what a mathematian will describe as “simple” or even “trivial” when he is in his mathematical perspective groove!
So a math professor is going through the proof of a theorem on the blackboard in front of his class. Partway through, a student stops him to ask about the justification for a particular step. The professor furrows his brow, stares at the chalkboard for a moment, then walks briskly from the room. Twenty minutes later he returns, his chalk worn down to a nub, and announces triumphantly, “it’s obvious”.
I know this one as: professor walks into a class, scrawls an equation on the blackboard, and announces “I’m sure you’ll all agree that this is obvious.” Then he stops, stares at it, walks away, comes back 20 minutes later and says “Yes, that’s right, it is obvious.”
Exactly. I wonder if anyone has a good link to a particularly witty or authoritative expression of this parody. I find it warrants reference rather frequently.
It’s one of the standard famous anecdotes about Norbert Wiener.
(Oddly enough, the reason I know so much about Wiener is because Dan Simmons in Hyperion & Fall of Hyperion based Sad King Billy on him.)