Archive for Pascal’s wager

Stories of your life and Others [book review]

Posted in Books, Kids, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2025 by xi'an

Just finished the book Stories of your life and Others by Ted Chiang, which like the later Exhalation I deeply enjoyed. The book was published in 2001, with some of its stories appearing as early as 1990, hence this book review is of little relevance when many reviews and commentaries have been published, including academic reviews. (No chance for CHANCE, then!)

“Perhaps you have not noticed that the lower classes are reproducing at a rate exceeding that of the nobility and gentry (…) Consequently, our nation would eventually drown in coarse dullards.” (p.186)

While the original cover seems to cater to old-fashion science-fictions books and magazine of the 1950’s, like Amazing Stories, the contents are much more philosophical than science-fiction-al, even when the universe  (or the physical laws that) Chiang creates relies on elaborate construction based on science. (Same thing happens with Exhalation.) With a take on religions and their logical loopholes that I particularly enjoy, like Hell is the Absence of God, where the central character is no given the choice of Pascal’s wager. And the nonsense of attributing handicaps and hardships to dog’s testing impacted individuals, as well as the involuntary humour in the innocent casualties resulting from angels visiting Earth.  Some stories I liked less, like Understand, about a superhuman emerging from drug tests since the end cannot keep up with the premises. But others I really appreciated, from Babel, set in a naïve (very medieval) version of the World, with a flat Earth and a solid sky. To Division by Zero, where a Gödelian mathematician pushes the impossibility theorem to ruin all of mathematics, and to the superb Seventy Two Letters, that mixes cybernetics, Kabbalists’ golem, genetics and eugenics, in a Victorian setting that could make it pass for a steampunk story, but I disagree with this label since the novella somewhat runs backwards by returning to a freedom of choice that trumps eugenic goals, while aligned with the Victorian perception of science. The same with Story of Your Life, about constructing communication channels with a perplexing if peaceful alien race, whose purpose for this attempt is never clear, which is not an issue with enjoying the built-up of an understanding, as well as the disrupted time-frame of the narration. Or even the short (Nature) story, The Evolution of Human Science, which reflects the very real concern that AI could take over research, into directions that would escape human understanding (not a good signal for i!). Leaving hermeneutics (of AI research) to humans. And the final Liking what you see, a clever variation on the issues of “lookism”, the “burden” of beauty, and an imagined condition called calliagnosia that makes people insensitive to beauty or lack thereof in a person.

is atheism irrational?

Posted in Books, Kids with tags , , , , , , , on March 2, 2014 by xi'an

“If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.”

On the (New York Times) philosophy blog The Stone, I spotted this entry and first wondered if I had misread the title, as atheism sounds (to me) as a most rational position. I then read the piece and found it mostly missing, even though a few points rang true(r). First, theism is never properly defined. (Even though the author Alvin Plantinga seems to stick to monotheist religions.) This is a not-so-subtle trick as it makes atheism appear as the extreme position, since it is rejecting any form of theism! Then, the interviewee is mostly using a sequence of sophisms as arguments that atheists are irrational, see e.g. the even-star-ism and a-moonism and a-teapotism entries. Further, some of his entries very strongly resemble intelligent design arguments, e.g. the “fine-tuning” line that the universe is too perfectly suited to human life to be due to randomness. Even though Plantinga also resorts to evolution when needed, as in the above quote. (The interviewer is not doing a great job either, by referring to evil, or the need (or lack thereof) of God versus science to explain the world. Rather than resorting to rational arguments. And without mentioning the fundamental point in favour of atheism that the existence of a sentient being driving the whole universe while remaining hidden to us humans requires an infinitely stronger step than arguing this is impossibly incompatible with the laws of Physics and the accumulated corpus of experience since the dawn of humanity.) The whole strategy of Plantinga is actually to turn atheism into another kind of belief “that materialism and evolution are true” and then to rank it equal with the theisms. A very poor philosophical performance. As also (and better) pointed out in this other post. (And as my daughter remarked, fresh from writing a philosophy essay, Plantinga is missing the best argument of all, namely Pascal’s wager, an early instance of decision theory applied to religion.)