O matematycznym modelu Boga w ujeciu Bubera, o modelach, o imieniu Boga, o wdzięczności...

29/11/2022 | Na stronie od 27/11/2022

Stanislaw Krajewski Mathematics, Philosophy and Theology Just Nowhere 12 Samuel Zinner Aulla, Italy

Just Nowhere Episode 12. Dr. Samuel Zinner (Aulla, Tuscany, Italy) interviews Stanislaw Krajewski, professor of philosophy at the University of Warsaw, Poland, and leading activist among Poland's Jewish communities.

Topics of discussion include Edwin Abbott's Flatlanders novel, the possibility of Artificial Intelligence, whether physicists as such are competent to pronounce upon the question of whether or not there was a God behind the big bang, a theological argument for the non-existence of God (by extending Maimonides' radical non-analogical theory), and an argument from gratitude for the existence of God.

More:

Please visit and read Professor Krajewski's works at academia.edu

Is Mathematics Connected to Religion? by Stanisław Krajewski

Transcript

0:01
[Music]
0:09
I think therefore I am but I'm thinking all the time and I
0:15
don't know who I am I are you
0:20
I'm in the middle of nowhere and it's a good place to be welcome to just nowhere
0:28
with Dr Samuel zinner
0:33
foreign
0:38
with your host Dr Samuel zinner and welcome to my desk here in the
0:44
Mountain Village of aula and Tuscany Italy tonight we have a very special guest professor stanyaslav krievsky
0:52
professor of philosophy at the University of Warsaw in Poland
0:57
he's also a leading activist in the Jewish communities of Poland
1:04
and he's written quite a bit about philosophy logic mathematics and to a
1:12
certain extent on theology as well especially Jewish thought he's argued that mathematical models
1:18
when applied to theology usually may be helpful but they're not necessarily
1:25
productive of new knowledge a possible appearance exception would be
1:33
Edwin Abbott's the Flatlanders novel and so Professor
1:39
krievsky stanislav can you start us off right with the
1:45
discussion of this apparent exception to this rule
1:51
and flat entities like you know rectangles or
1:58
whatever and they live on a plane and they are completely flat two-dimensional
2:03
so from their point of view a three-dimensional entity objects a solid
2:11
object can which to them is only the intersection of that object with the
2:16
plane is something that is tangible to them so it's another
2:21
flat shape but when it goes using the
2:27
third dimensional from one place to another it's somehow it miraculously changes the location its location and
2:34
that's to them to those flat flat lenders it looks like a miracle so
2:42
this is a nice illustration of what a miracle can be when you have an
2:47
additional Dimension at hand and this this is quite nice
2:54
again does it really explain theological matters I don't think so but it really
3:00
is is very I think very creative and in some ways very impressive
3:07
so now this model of mind that you mentioned it was um I I I invented it
3:14
when I was reading Martin buber's Eye thou and then there is a line there let
3:21
me quote the extended lines of relations meet in the internal though
3:28
the extended lines of relations he meant the relations basically of relationships
3:34
of human of human yes and when there are there's a relation
3:41
you know you can see the behind the the partner the other person of the relation
3:48
you can see that somehow you know Eternal or absolute thou or you or
3:55
really this is his way of trying to introduce God as an
4:02
result as an as a result of the inter-human relation yes and I think
4:09
it's very interesting and it's good for our age I think to think in this way but
4:14
anyway the way he expressed that idea and of course it's expounded much more
4:22
there comprehensively there so it's really something that we immediately brings to
4:29
mind to those who know what it is the project in geometry yes because in the
4:35
projective geometry you have the normal in the plane the geometry geometry you
4:40
have the points but you also have in addition to normal points of the plane you have the the so-called points at
4:47
Infinity which correspond to the directions of lines if there is a line
4:53
it has a direction and this direction is somehow represented by the point at
4:58
infinity and by the way it has one point the the line has you know goes you know in both ways but the direction is just
5:07
one the that is the idea and so whether you go this way or the opposite way you get
5:14
the same point at Infinity the more more than that you know all
5:20
those points at Infinity together they uh form a line at Infinity
5:27
and when you look at things this way then you know it turns out that
5:32
two points both normal and the the infinite ones always
5:38
determine one line and two lines whether normal lines or this line at Infinity
5:45
they cross in one point so there is a complete and perfect
5:51
Symmetry and you know many things have follow mathematically from that now
5:57
the idea was that that you know that the line at
6:03
Infinity that point at Infinity is somehow what is suggested by the relation between those
6:10
normal points or say normal human beings and the
6:16
whole area of the the points of at Infinity forms this line at Infinity which can be
6:24
seen as the mathematical representation of transcendence so Transcendence is
6:29
somehow behind and you know out of not not in our world but somehow but
6:39
it somehow you know reachable that it's suggested by what is happening in our
6:44
world yes and so it's very nice I think as an idea and it can be really Illustrated as a model in
6:51
three-dimensional geometry by this no hemisphere for example the northern
6:57
northern hemisphere uh what we can imagine and the the points at at the
7:05
equator are those additional points like at Infinity
7:11
and this this is really a good mathematical model and the point is that
7:16
you we two points that are opposite to each other on the equator they represent
7:23
the same straight line which on the sphere it is like a this is
7:29
called the great circle yes the shortest way between two normal points on the
7:35
Northern Hemisphere and this is by the way how the airplanes
7:40
usually fly when they they go from one place to another right because this is
7:45
the shortest way and the shortest route and so ads but but those two opposite
7:51
points on the equator they must be identified because they represent one
7:58
just one point at infinity and that is something that is difficult to imagine
8:04
but that's I think it's a very good way of imagining image or representing the
8:11
the Transcendence the transcendent
8:18
and in addition to that as you mentioned I I I somehow used that and I really I
8:26
am using it from time to time to as a tool this in this you know imagined
8:32
model as a tool assisting meditation during the saying this this Jewish
8:39
prayer Israel here of Israel Hashem or God Hashem is one or Hashem one or
8:47
unique whatever there are many commentaries on that but that's not the point here the point is that
8:53
I somehow imagine myself on somewhere there or maybe even on the top
8:59
of the like the northern uh pole yes and so other humans are somewhere there
9:07
around me those who are you know close to me religiously which means Jews are
9:13
closer the others about what whoever and with whom whomever I can enter into a
9:20
relation the you know what we see behind that person what I see behind that
9:26
person is is that Eternal though or the this you know the the figure of God or
9:33
the idea of God or whatever however you put it and
9:38
and it it and it's uh and it's always
9:43
you know somewhere there on the equator but we put the opposite points of the
9:49
Equator as one point one in improper point point at infinity and
9:56
what is more we do one more step which is going beyond the projective geometry
10:01
or the model of quadratic geometry Beyond it namely we identify all those
10:07
improper points as one point because God is one and this is what we can imagine
10:13
that somehow they are or all you know become one point that's even harder to
10:20
imagine but that's good Transcendence should be nice to imagine that yes how it works yes yes
10:27
well uh the first thought that occurs to me as well could could we then as a thought experiment start at the point of
10:34
unity and then go the other way and so we we not only can end up with
10:40
you we can begin with the unity and then it branches out to the poor would that
10:45
work I mean my mind is uh spinning from from the whole metaphor from the whole illustration so forgive me if if that's
10:53
incoherent but uh would that work and that's a very good idea and that's
11:00
that perhaps more works better with uh all sort of neoplatonists you know uh I
11:06
pictures of how the the universe develops from one
11:11
Creator or whatever but in this projective Model A
11:17
projective geometry model I'm not sure how to do it how to start from one point
11:22
but certainly you know and anything is possible in this area right right I
11:29
think a mixing uh metaphors or models because uh if you apply it to the the
11:35
Shema Israel uh this there seems to be a different scenario than the neoplatonic The Perennial question right the
11:42
relation between the one and the mini right on the cosmic scale right even
11:49
even though they might overlap to you know in various ways if you qualify
11:55
some of the details um but it also occurs to me uh I I
12:02
remember you mentioned uh forgive me uh I can't recall the Philosopher's name I
12:08
believe he's polish philosopher and you mentioned that he developed this model
12:13
he points out that Aristotle gave us a third person philosophy and Descartes of course right uh with
12:21
the with the coach soon gave us a first person philosophy abubar gave us the
12:27
second person philosophy yes but the question now is
12:34
is Uber's second person philosophy in some sense
12:40
plural right because we have the the three persons in the singular column writing grammar but then now we have
12:46
this you know the the uh we you they in in the in the plural so is boober's
12:54
model because it's I and thou somehow plural
13:00
okay basically it's individual you're absolutely right I think it's it's a good model of inter-human relations with
13:08
all those implications you know in concerning the the say the Divine but
13:15
the fact is that we need something like a plural like a plural
13:21
aspect to be represented and this hasn't been done properly as far as I can say
13:27
as I can see so it's a my
13:33
and especially you know in in inter religion in in completely inter-human
13:40
meeting perhaps it's enough to have the two individuals but if if it's an say
13:47
inter-religious meeting interreligious encounter which I am interested in then
13:52
when you meet someone who is of a certain religion you are not supposed to
13:58
just ignore that religiosity or the religion of that other person of course
14:05
I could take it into account seriously it would mean that you take into account not just this person but the whole you
14:12
know background which is also other person so it's like from I though it
14:17
becomes like I you plural you in some sense and this becomes a much more
14:25
difficult or complex model to to to think about and but it may be
14:33
can be developed yes well I I believe you did point out right in your buber
14:40
model that this plurality right you can connect it to the plural suffix right in
14:46
elegenu right so you have a morality of sorts there or given that
14:52
right Elohim or Elohim as it said traditionally right it's it has this
14:57
strange plural form which we'll talk about later but uh we we could also
15:03
connect that plurality to the Israel
15:08
um is that correct yes of course not grammatically but Israel of course is the plural entity
15:15
obviously uh like as humanity is and in fact it
15:22
works in the same way in the model in basically you may you may make
15:29
some sort of Distinction but basically they they in the model they have the
15:35
same roles which is good I mean that's that's how it should be I think sure sure well each Community is is unique
15:41
and important right and TP be preserved I also am interested or on inner
15:47
religious dialogue in a religious relationships and so what Springs to my
15:53
mind then is this uh echo of the Shema in the Quran uh in in a one of the most
16:00
important Muslim prayers as far as I understand um and it adopts the Shema by saying
16:08
instead of here it says say cool say um God is one
16:15
right so it leaves out and uh please I don't don't
16:20
misunderstand I'm not criticizing right I'm just pointing out the the clear parallels so it it just simply States
16:28
say God is one so it's leaving out right the specificity of Israel in the Shema
16:35
right so it's as if it's right applying it to a different group or perhaps it's
16:40
trying to universalize it I don't know but my my point is that um
16:47
I think even there are even though the collective Israel is not mentioned I
16:53
believe it would still be understood right that who is to say God is one well everyone right ideally right so uh just
17:04
as a a small parallel there are for the sake of right uh interest in in a
17:09
religious uh dialogue and that of course
17:15
also would bring up uh you know the Christian communities right because they're also
17:22
um involved in in this whole history I think um since um Jesus according to the
17:30
gospels also says that the greatest commandment right would be right here o
17:37
Israel right so the Shema and then to love God and so uh I believe your boober model
17:45
which is founded on the Shema actually has good potential right to be uh used
17:52
in dialogue with both Muslims and Christians but right I'm not going to present it's an expert very happy to see
17:59
to see this but the fact is that it's just a model and how you know creative
18:06
or how uh deep it is is another question I think it's a it's a serious question
18:12
how good those models are I think it's a very nice illustration but is it more
18:18
than illustration this is this other problem that I that uh which is
18:24
interesting and I don't have a good answer unfortunately I suspect that in
18:30
the while in science mathematical models are not only
18:35
illustrating but they are really you know
18:41
showing or getting you know to the
18:47
real configuration of entities of things and
18:54
that's why they can suggest new evidence which can be done
18:59
tested empirically and this has happened you know all all
19:06
the time in in Sciences in various Sciences but in the
19:11
humanities I don't think it's possible the illustration can be suggested if it can be very nice and can really give
19:18
some sort of satisfactory picture but I don't know any really good example
19:25
of the situation in which you know some new aspects or even new facts are somehow
19:32
adjusted by the model and it can be then tested and say oh yes now we understand
19:37
things between not on imagined before this is not really
19:44
happening I think there is one exception though which is perhaps not which is
19:49
only apparent an apparent exception namely there are some statistical
19:55
analysis of texts including the religious or holy texts and then when
20:01
you have some some statistical you know
20:07
regularities then you can say that another text you know written later or
20:13
whatever can be seen as this similar or less similar or something like that so
20:19
this sort of analysis can be can be made but this is about text and that text is
20:25
a material something you know concrete that you can analyze with these methods
20:31
but ideas and values that are important for the Humanities are not really I
20:38
think part of that possible possibility that you have a
20:46
creative role of mathematical models yes
20:51
agreed so I think I could summarize that um by saying that
20:58
the mathematical models in science right can lead to new knowledge new
21:05
discoveries or um greater approximations to right a
21:12
certain goal of truth right so ever more refined approach to to some conclusion
21:21
right whereas um in theology if we think of mathematical models
21:29
such as the one that you developed which is very very intriguing very suggestive
21:35
and and also very practical right for for meditation and religion uh but the
21:42
question would be then does it produce
21:47
um a new discovery in theology that had not been known previously
21:53
I would probably not right that's that's my yes that's my guess that it does not
22:00
although if it does if somebody can show a good example that would be wonderful yes it would be well so well we can
22:07
conclude this subject I think then by saying if I may that we're left with two
22:14
top really intriguing and suggestive models to keep in mind that's Abbott's
22:22
Flatlanders and your boobers my Israel model
22:29
I think because of the projective geometry the lines of infinity that meet uh the unit there's a lot to think on
22:37
and it's it's very challenging right and so I include your model in that because
22:44
it's so challenging I cannot um presume to say
22:50
I I've understood it completely so I I think it's it's worthy of of more
22:56
contemplation all right um
23:01
let's let's jump to this next question since it ties into uh something I
23:07
mentioned earlier and that is what is your explanation or your tinted
23:13
explanation for the this odd plural form of the Hebrew uh the main Hebrew word
23:19
for God Elohim which is famously plural oddly right yeah yeah so this is the one
23:26
of the most important names for God used in the Hebrew scripture and it's a
23:33
in its plural that's unclear why but even more is puzzling namely that it
23:41
always is practically always is used with verbs or adjectives in the singular
23:48
formulas so it's ungrammatical use of that of that
23:54
name which is the characteristic for the for for Hebrew Bible and that's
24:01
that's very strange and it's not properly explained by the traditional
24:06
commentators which is what this is strange because then usually they really try to explain each detail even tiny
24:14
detail of the text sooner or later you know they discuss it and explain but this is not really done
24:23
and which is very strange in addition it must be mentioned that the the term
24:30
Elohim and in various forms is also used to describe various other
24:40
powers human or non-human Powers yes so and so
24:46
the normal so there are normally you know that the real God is above all Elohim above all powers and then of
24:54
course if it's used in this sense then the adjectives or verbs are grammatically
25:00
put together in in the plural form as they should yes but when it is it refers
25:07
to the one God it is always ungrammatically
25:14
used and so the question is why so the I try
25:21
to to see what was said and you know the answers are are more or less like either
25:28
they know that this is supposed to say that all the powers of this world are somehow under the this one God or or
25:39
controlled by one God or a flow from one God and yeah but this this is certainly
25:46
the biblical idea but this doesn't really explain why the name is using
25:52
plural and some other attempts like for example Herman Cohen who about a hundred years
25:58
ago wrote his great book and he was a major philosopher and at the end of his
26:05
life he was coming back to his Jewish theological
26:11
knowledge and considerations and he produced that book in which he does
26:16
mention the the point and what was and he wrote let me quote that it it is
26:23
really uh a puzzle it's so puzzling he said that that is
26:30
that uh [Music] that
26:37
that of course the intention of the world is not that that there is some
26:43
plurality in God of course not but the the it seems as an almost insoluble
26:49
riddle he says and that's you know and so he treats it as as a perhaps uh
26:58
leftover of the polytheistic times yes well that there so this is a flow a
27:06
float a phrase expression
27:13
but it has but because everybody understands you know that everybody who
27:18
uses the term what it really means that you know this is an it is relevant at
27:24
least innocuous the the flow that is still plural rather than singular
27:30
because there are singular corresponding singular terms that can be
27:36
used in in Hebrew right
27:41
depending on how you read it and so it is it's not that there is no choice but
27:47
it was but still all sometimes those other terms are used but almost always
27:53
this term in plural is yes and everybody has been you know completely
28:01
accepting it and it's we are used to it yes now
28:06
Mike so my point is that if this is so so there should be an explanation that
28:13
would explain why it is not only the case but it's the it's good I mean it's
28:19
a solution of a problem that is sub that is an important problem from the
28:25
traditional point of view and and my my suggestion is very simple
28:31
although I don't think it has been made it was made me it was ever made before
28:38
although maybe it was but I haven't heard about it namely
28:44
um died it's not that this is there is a new message involved of course that
28:49
would be rather irresponsible to think that we can have a new message yes you know
28:56
detect a new message just by analyzing a word but that message that is well known is
29:04
that God is one there is no plurality and when you use the other name of God
29:11
Hashem you know the youth Heaven is the proper name of God so to say then of
29:18
course as every proper name it is it suggests Unicity there is now nothing no
29:25
other entity that can be named with using this name right but when you use
29:31
this General Semitic name Elohim which is
29:36
just a general name and it's very similar to Allah for example in the yes
29:41
linguistically in Arabic so then we so that then the
29:48
question is why we are using it in and more and even in in an ungrammatical way
29:55
and my an answer is that it does it does contain a message and the
30:03
message is then well-known message God is one and there's no category in which we can
30:12
have God and anything else now this God is one in very very strong sense it's
30:19
there is no category we can apply to God it's not there are many gods or many absolutes or whatever and it's one of
30:28
them is the biblical God no we want to somehow convey the message that it's
30:34
there is no common denominator of God and other anything else and this is
30:40
something that is being pro sad pronounced proclaimed in many ways by
30:47
the traditional prayers but I think the very name Elohim in
30:53
plural also does convey the same message why because this name is the only
31:02
General name as opposed to proper names which cannot be put into plural
31:09
if it were L then you can put it in plural a limb or whatever but if it's
31:16
Elohim you cannot made a plural of a plural because it's already in plural
31:22
so the plural name cannot be put into the plural form
31:27
so it suggests or rather it conveys this message that it cannot be generalized it
31:35
cannot there is nothing similar that can be put side by side by side by side just
31:42
because we use the plural form and the singular verbs and adjectives so this
31:50
the uniqueness in comparability of God is expressed by the very form of God's
31:56
name who knows right and then then the yes and the the
32:02
one of the key parts of that is the use of the singular forms together with it
32:09
and that's really what clinches the argument yeah it's it's fascinating and um I've
32:15
um uh not to boast but I've I've read a lot on this subject and I have not come across
32:21
uh this argument before not aware of it either and so the interesting
32:28
um to see if any of of the listeners right will
32:33
um have will ever have heard of this I I tend to doubt it but it's extremely
32:39
intriguing our argument uh because right it's it's a problem that is present
32:46
right in the very first line of the Torah I mean you know there it is it's like they're the very
32:54
first line uh perhaps by by Design right so
33:00
um you know why hold back the challenges and the Mysteries right just put it out there and the very first line right of
33:07
the Torah all right and by the way we don't translate it properly because we always
33:13
read it into English and other languages published another as you know at the
33:19
beginning or whatever God created but uh but the best better translation in
33:26
English it's not so easy but it would be something like uh at the beginning when
33:32
God's um creates when God creates right yes to
33:39
make it ungrammatical again yes that's a good point um that's it's very
33:44
challenging even the first part right because in in baratio uh there is no definite article of course so even you
33:52
know in the beginning really really it's not literal it's more like with or at or
33:59
however with um a beginning or a head or right
34:04
because it's it's multivalent in Hebrew so one should really learn their Hebrew
34:09
all right if to read the Torah um all right so related to this would be
34:15
uh the question I sort of skipped which is more uh challenging challenging
34:21
right and it's uh from the domain of of logic and theology all right so when
34:27
we're talking about Arguments for the existence of God we usually in these arguments consider God as an
34:33
object right and um in one of your papers I believe it was
34:39
actually co-authored if I'm not mistaken uh you you then mentioned that there is
34:46
also a possibility in these Arguments for the existence of God they're also a
34:51
kind of argument where wherein God it would not be considered as an object
34:58
right and so excuse me this is traditional that that God is not an
35:04
object is pretty well present in the tradition one way or another
35:11
and in modern philosophy also you know for example levinas says that the dear
35:17
he is you know he comes to to mind or or
35:23
that you know or Russian Striker says that that there is no
35:30
that existence is not the same in for if we think about God and we think about
35:35
the world these are not two ways of the same existence these are completely
35:40
different ways of existing but yes so now my point is not just it is but it's not an object because this is rather
35:46
well I would say familiar yes my point is
35:51
that and this is not completely uh you know
35:58
different from what some other people are saying but but it's it's it's a bit
36:04
stronger that not only we don't have good ways of saying what God is or what are
36:11
properties of God we also should or could simply refrain from saying that God
36:18
exists existence is also not applicable to God I think
36:24
which doesn't mean that I somehow uh say that God does not exist understood not
36:31
the same at all and the best way perhaps to to make a comparison would be that we
36:39
can ask whether Justice exists or not to say that the Justice exists rather
36:46
strange you know where what what would it really mean but of course we do talk about Justice all the time and Justice
36:53
is very important in our way of you know relating to to the human world and to
36:58
the world yes and the same I would say with meaning meaning is not an object also meaning is something very important
37:06
you know and the meaning of our being here of the world of our life whatever
37:11
but it's not an object that we can talk about it's a way of looking at things
37:17
it's a light that really somehow illumine can can illuminate the objects
37:26
or there is a verse in the psalm that's saying that you know God is light in
37:34
which we can see lights the other light can be seen because of God's light something like this yes
37:40
so in this sense it's not that strange to say that we try to we can try to say
37:47
that existence is not applicable to God but but
37:53
because it's somehow not it's not the the way to to look at to
37:59
look at God it's like but it's not only that I I mean I have this comparison that I
38:07
think is of Interest uh because I I've been dealing with
38:12
mathematics for many decades and and I am originally a mathematician by
38:19
training and and I and I noticed that interesting parallel
38:25
between uh you know this way of approaching God that we do not apply the
38:33
category of existence to God and the way mathematicians and professional
38:39
mathematicians and even the brightest mathematicians uh approach the question of the
38:45
existence of mathematical objects like numbers yes ask about numbers
38:51
mathematicians would say okay yes sure we deal with them they they exist as as as
38:59
perfectly as as other objects in which with which we can deal in our lives yes
39:05
when asked you know we're depressed you know in what sense do they exist they they they they really are not sure they
39:12
they say no no I don't know maybe maybe they don't we behave as if they existed
39:18
but not doesn't really mean that they exist somewhere out there or some you
39:24
know in some way that is because that it becomes then like a like
39:29
in a fable you know like you know something you know what does it really mean no no and
39:36
and so if in mathematics we can we can have the situation that we don't know
39:44
whether numbers exist but still we use the numbers and we use them very successfully yes then maybe you know in
39:52
theology we can say that existence of God is not a the issue really it's not
39:57
something that we should consider which is of course going against the very
40:02
important and dominant tradition in theological studies
40:08
but we should of course use we it's not strange that we are using the term God
40:15
as if God was an object because there is no other way to express various things
40:21
as we use the numbers because there is no other way to express various mathematical things yes and so this
40:28
parallel I think is very interesting and very Illuminating because mathematics
40:33
seems to be so you know well defined and so so obviously and I mean valuable
40:42
nobody really denies the the mathematics the the meaning of mathematics and it's
40:49
it's usefulness but many people do with respect to Theology and but if there is this
40:56
parallel it would show that perhaps you know we should be much more charitable
41:01
to yes so not thinking about theology and also I have another parallel which I
41:09
took from another philosopher mathematician buyers
41:16
which is the metaphor using the metaphor of a
41:23
rainbow rainbow with a something beautiful we all know about it but the fact is that
41:29
that a rainbow is not an object a rainbow which seems to be somewhere
41:36
there from time to time you know it's it's not there really we can only see it
41:42
but we can so it's not an object but it's objective in some sense because
41:48
it's uh it's not that we see it in a whatever form we imagine no we see it in
41:54
a specific way and there is a optical physical way of explaining the the
42:00
rainbow of course and we can photograph it and everything so it's objective but
42:05
it's not an object so there might be objective uh
42:11
parts of the world which are not objective because they are they may deal
42:17
with objects but for some other reason so in for the rainbow we have the a good
42:23
scientific explanation and we know what uh what it why and how it works
42:30
I think that for mathematics we don't I mean we're not don't really know why
42:36
numbers are are seen by us as OB as if
42:41
they were objects but we deal with them as if they were objects but maybe we can
42:49
somehow sooner or later uh invent or propose a way to to to to
42:58
understand why and the same would apply it in some way to to the Divine matters
43:04
that that these are God is not an object but it's the way of it's inevitable to I
43:12
mean it's the it's good and inevitable to use the this term in order to express certain
43:21
deep truths about the world and our being here yes well you mentioned that
43:28
meaning is not an object and that's very helpful because
43:34
I perhaps perhaps one way of saying it would be that meaning is the background
43:40
or the ground from which all of our discourse emanates right from which we
43:46
we create grammatical objects nouns Etc and so if we apply that analogy to
43:53
God right then I could see how that could be helpful because now God is not
43:58
an object strictly speaking of discourse but God is sort of the the
44:06
of course this is all metaphorical speech right but the background or the ground from which we will consider right all of
44:14
these various theories about the existence of God and but to say that God
44:21
does not exist I believe of course has eminent support from maimonides and his
44:27
Doctrine um you know famously there's this tension between let's say the the
44:32
apophatic approach of maimonides and then at the Aquinas
44:37
doctrine of analogy the analogy of being right and so nothing can be compared
44:44
between creation and the Creator or God because the existence that we share
44:51
which is right philosophy calls it contingent existence is not
44:56
uh what is meant when one talks about the existence of God and so for
45:01
maimonides he's quite radical on this right this quite radical on this
45:07
approach so that I I think that's the natural place to go
45:14
um is maimonides right when we say God does not exist because the meaning of
45:19
existence right as applied to creatures cannot be applied to God yes
45:26
although I don't think my monitors would say that because he of course did say that God does exist and had Arguments
45:33
for the Existence for the existence of God so in this sense I think it's going a bit further in the same direction of
45:40
it's apothetic in a even stronger sense which I think is possible in our our era
45:47
to say that even existence does not apply to God unless on other attributes
45:54
of course yes but my point is that you do have a right to to found the argument
46:00
starting with maimonides and then to stretch the argument right I think I
46:06
think so yes I think you're right yes and um one one brief point
46:13
on on this issue which which will usually come up
46:18
um I'd like to ask this of any philosophers especially or theologians that I happen to speak
46:25
with and um all right I recall um the I believe it's the 2012
46:32
Copernicus lecture that was given by uh the physicist George FR Ellis and he was
46:39
very harsh um I think rightfully so he was very harsh in
46:46
taking to task uh physicists like Lawrence Cross and others
46:52
um for not for being good physicists which they are but for being bad philosophers because they would argue
46:59
that others the concept of God or the belief in God is greater is irrational because we can
47:07
explain through physics how to get from nothing to something which of course is you know totally overlooks that the
47:12
nothingness of philosophy and theology is not the nothingness of of quantum
47:17
physics for example or the or the physicists so the question for you is this
47:24
um what would you think of my argument and that is that a physicist as
47:32
a physicist does not have the competence to affirm or deny whether a God was
47:40
behind the big bang for example now they they can learn philosophy and theology if they want to and speak from that but
47:47
just as a physicist this question of God uh that's beyond the competence that's
47:55
not their field would you agree or what would you I absolutely agree I absolutely agree and the point is that
48:02
from for the physicist as a physicist yes you know the word is composed of
48:09
matter and that's not and that's the only way to to to to to investigate to to study
48:17
the world from the physical point of view and all of this matter in the 19th
48:23
century they thought matter is only corpuscle Corpus color but we then learn that it can be a field or whatever and
48:31
and waves and things but or quarks or whatever but it's it's still you know
48:39
material and mathematical by the way physics is very as you know very
48:45
mathematical so those objects when we go go deep enough become very very
48:50
mathematically sophisticated and the connection between the you know the all
48:57
those very sophisticated theories and the everyday physical experience we have
49:03
is not that close I mean it's really another issue but but the point is that
49:10
this is is the Assumption of a physicist that everything is material and that's
49:15
that's okay I mean that it has it has to be that way but from this you cannot infer that that there is nothing
49:24
there is nothing else in the universe because this was your assumption rather
49:30
than than anything else and so yes yes you may somebody can have you can can
49:36
propose another assumption it's a bit like you know with uh now we have this
49:41
great success of of um you know of our computers and programs
49:48
and all those things so the idea of Digit that that digital
49:54
uh realm is so important it has led some people to to say that okay so the world
50:02
is really like a huge computer or like a huge you know um
50:07
program or whatever that it's really the world can be seen as a huge program in
50:15
some computer program if you are consistent enough you can try to develop
50:21
this sort of approach but again this is a certain uh assumption rather than the
50:28
reality of the world right in a former age the clock was the metaphor that
50:33
science latched onto and saw the universe as a giant sophisticated
50:38
Clockwork right now it's computers so yes good points yes
50:46
um all right let's try to bring this to a close now with my final question
50:52
um if you may indulge me and that's can you tell us
50:57
what is your your argument from gratitude for the existence of God
51:05
that's yeah of course I know it sounds rather
51:10
strange even funny I'm not saying that we can prove it or
51:19
in existence I I just have five a few minutes ago I said the existence doesn't
51:24
apply to God the point is that gratitude I think is very important and
51:30
gratitude is is beneficial to us to be grateful and there are whole studies of gratitude
51:37
as I have learned recently and showing that really people who are more grateful
51:42
for whatever reason they have better lives generally speaking
51:49
and I think that gratitude is something that we experience from some time now
51:56
that perhaps not everybody but to those who experience this gratitude in a fundamental sense I mean that
52:05
sometimes I have experienced that I would say I feel not just grateful to my parents
52:12
you know due to them I am here but and my ancestors and my teachers and my
52:20
community and my and the humanity and whatever and those who invented all
52:27
those things like computers and and you know the possibility of of remote con
52:34
connections that we we are using now so we of course I'm grateful to all of
52:40
those but I am also somehow fundamentally grateful
52:46
sometimes I feel for to know that nobody's specific but
52:52
in general I'm grateful in general it's like a fundamental feeling of gratitude
52:58
and now the next point is that if there is gratitude it must be
53:05
to someone I cannot be grateful to things and people say they are great for
53:10
I don't know to the mountains that I love hiking in the mountains some people love that so people say oh I am grateful
53:18
to the martyrs but are you really grateful to the mountains I think it's it's it's misusing the the term we are
53:25
grateful only to someone to a person to personality otherwise it's
53:32
it's just not using the term proper so if you have this fundamental feeling of
53:37
gratitude and the the Gratitude is to someone so the question
53:45
is to whom to whom is that gratitude that fundamental generalized gratitude
53:52
and you know for my being here for the
53:58
fact that things are as they should be despite all the problems that we all encounter all the time and if so then
54:08
this person with capital P if you want is is the somehow emerges as the
54:17
counterpart of the feeling of gratitude so if anyone has felt that and agrees with the assumption that gratitude is
54:24
the person or the personality rather than to a thing then you know this
54:31
suggests that conclusion yes very good yeah and and I should
54:37
point out that you have presented this argument in the context of this question
54:43
which which is really uh burning question these days very controversial question of um
54:51
artificial intelligence right so I believe the way you phrase it is could a robot
54:57
be grateful right and uh you have various
55:02
arguments and I know you have a very uh just for a reference uh everyone out
55:07
there uh you have a very interesting paper uh where you uh point out a
55:15
logical flaw in Roger penrose's argument right um about robots and and Consciousness
55:22
but you end up I believe supporting his main contention after all right once um
55:30
you know the the error and logic is is corrected um
55:35
I have um friends at uh in Silicon Valley I have friends uh who do projects
55:41
for DARPA in the United States and they are increasingly not this was not the
55:48
case a decade ago but increasingly now at least uh the people I speak to are
55:54
increasingly doubtful that um a program a software which is really
56:02
what we're talking about a robot or a computer could attain real Consciousness the type of Consciousness that humans
56:09
have and uh the the reason I am told for that is which makes a lot of sense for me
56:16
um when I think about human cognition and all of this is that you um it makes no sense you
56:23
know the old idea of a vat uh a brain and a vat right that a brain detached
56:29
from a body it could be functional is ludicrous you need the whole mechanism the sensory input from the spinal column
56:37
from your fingertips and What Makes Us human is not just the brain and so we're
56:44
our Consciousness um if I'm not mistaken is also being informed and formed
56:51
right by most of the sensory input from our entire body right uh if we're out
56:59
hunting for example uh it's just not our brain that is calculating whether or not
57:05
a risk is worth the the mill it's uh uh
57:10
data is coming in from from everywhere and all right and so also
57:17
um what about emotions also because these are not only pertaining to the brain
57:25
uh I would argue that emotions also have a lot to do with our stomach what what
57:31
do we eat and this is going to really affect potentially our emotions if we eat too much sugar we have a depressed
57:38
emotion right and so without the stomach and the environment of the bacteria
57:44
it's not going to work anyway I'm be you can see my bias no no I I fully agree by
57:50
the way but who knows maybe you know the robots of the future robots will have a
57:56
body and maybe even a stomach and the cyborg bacteria whatever it's imaginable
58:03
that they can have all those not all but many of those things yes whether there
58:08
is some sort of human characteristic that is not possible to emulate or
58:16
simulate in robots and so of course there are some ideas
58:21
like you know the humor for example perhaps you can teach a robot to have
58:28
some sort of a sense of humor although I'm not quite sure what it would mean but it's not not impossible so other
58:35
other emotions they try now to to somehow simulate some emotions with the
58:41
robot in order to make it more realistic exactly because of the reason that you just mentioned my point is that maybe
58:49
you know being grateful is one of the most difficult or maybe unattainable
58:55
aspects of of our human behavior of our human personality that
59:02
cannot be really simulated because to have a real feeling of
59:09
gratitude rather than of course the robot can be taught to to say oh thank you I'm very grateful that's very easy
59:16
yes feel that it's this is the problem so
59:21
maybe this is like one of those last you know ways of of defending our
59:27
specificity yes we shall see and I'm very grateful to you stanislav for
59:33
spending this time with me you're very eloquent and what you have to say is
59:38
very enlightening and so thank you so much for being here I thank you very much I'm really very grateful to you for
59:45
asking the questions for or having read my some of my papers and I'm really
59:50
happy it's happening and I hope it will have some effect all right you're welcome best wishes if
59:58
you enjoyed the program please consider supporting this Channel with a donation through patreon or PayPal
1:00:05
and don't forget to subscribe thank you