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

Wielki Wybuch

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:

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