나는이 무신론 시리즈 이루어졌다 생각. 그러나, 나는 웨인 DYERS의 책에서이 구절을 가로 질러왔다, 당신의 신성한 생명. 내 친구는 어떤 사람을 믿지 않는 우리에게 훈계의 일종으로 약화.
I want to wrap up this series on atheism with a personal story about the point in time where I started diverging from the concept of God. I was very young then, about five years old. I had lost a pencil. It had just slipped out of my schoolbag, which was nothing more than a plastic basket with open weaves and a handle. When I realized that I had lost the pencil, I was quite upset. I think I was worried that I would get a scolding for my carelessness. 당신이 볼, my family wasn’t rich. We were slightly better off than the households in our neighborhood, but quite poor by any global standards. The new pencil was, 나에게, a prized possession.
The atheist-theist debate boils down to a simple question — Did humans discover God? 또는, did we invent Him? The difference between discovering and inventing is the similar to the one between believing and knowing. Theist believe that there was a God to be discovered. Atheists “알고” that we humans invented the concept of God. Belief and knowledge differ only slightly — knowledge is merely a very very strong belief. A belief is considered knowledge when it fits in nicely with a larger worldview, which is very much like how a hypothesis in physics becomes a theory. While a theory (such as Quantum Mechanics, 예를 들어) is considered to be knowledge (or the way the physical world really is), it is best not to forget the its lowly origin as a mere hypothesis. My focus in this post is the possible origin of the God hypothesis.
The only recourse an atheist can have against this argument based on personal experience is that the believer is either is misrepresenting his experience or is mistaken about it. I am not willing to pursue that line of argument. I know that I am undermining my own stance here, but I would like to give the theist camp some more ammunition for this particular argument, and make it more formal.
I have a reason for delaying this post on the fifth and last argument for God by Dr. William Lane Craig. It holds more potency than immediately obvious. While it is easy to write it off because it is a subjective, experiential argument, the lack of credence we attribute to subjectivity is in itself a result of our similarly subjective acceptance of what we consider objective reason and rationality. I hope that this point will become clearer as you read this post and the next one.
In the previous post, we considered the cosmological argument (that the Big Bang theory is an affirmation of a God) and a teleological argument (that the highly improbable fine-tuning of the universe proves the existence of intelligent creation). We saw that the cosmological argument is nothing more than an admission of our ignorance, although it may be presented in any number of fancy forms (such as the cause of the universe is an uncaused cause, which is God, 예를 들어). The teleological argument comes from a potentially wilful distortion of the anthropic principle. The next one that Dr. Craig puts forward is the origin of morality, which has no grounding if you assume that atheism is true.
교수. William Lane Craig is way more than a deist; he is certainly a theist. 사실, he is more than that; he believes that God is as described in the scriptures of his flavor of Christianity. I am not an expert in that field, so I don’t know exactly what that flavor is. But the arguments he gave do not go much farther than the deism. He gave five arguments to prove that God exists, and he invited Hitchens to refute them. Hitchens did not; 적어도, not in an enumerated and sequential fashion I plan to do here.
This post is an edited version of my responses in a Webinar panel-discussion organized by Wiley-Finance and FinCAD. The freely available Webcast is linked in the post, and contains responses from the other participants — Paul Wilmott and Espen Huag. An expanded version of this post may later appear as an article in the Wilmott Magazine.
What is Risk?
When we use the word Risk in normal conversation, it has a negative connotation — risk of getting hit by a car, 예를 들어; but not the risk of winning a lottery. In finance, risk is both positive and negative. 때때로, you want the exposure to a certain kind of risk to counterbalance some other exposure; 시간에, you are looking for the returns associated with a certain risk. Risk, in this context, is almost identical to the mathematical concept of probability.
But even in finance, you have one kind of risk that is always negative — it is Operational Risk. My professional interest right now is in minimizing the operational risk associated with trading and computational platforms.
How do you measure Risk?
Measuring risk ultimately boils down to estimating the probability of a loss as a function of something — typically the intensity of the loss and time. So it’s like asking — What’s the probability of losing a million dollars or two million dollars tomorrow or the day after?
The question whether we can measure risk is another way of asking whether we can figure out this probability function. In certain cases, we believe we can — in Market Risk, 예를 들어, we have very good models for this function. Credit Risk is different story — although we thought we could measure it, we learned the hard way that we probably could not.
The question how effective the measure is, 이다, 내보기, like asking ourselves, “What do we do with a probability number?” If I do a fancy calculation and tell you that you have 27.3% probability of losing one million tomorrow, what do you do with that piece of information? Probability has a reasonable meaning only a statistical sense, in high-frequency events or large ensembles. Risk events, 거의 정의에 의해, are low-frequency events and a probability number may have only limited practical use. But as a pricing tool, accurate probability is great, especially when you price instruments with deep market liquidity.
Innovation in Risk Management.
Innovation in Risk comes in two flavors — one is on the risk taking side, which is in pricing, warehousing risk and so on. On this front, we do it well, or at least we think we are doing it well, and innovation in pricing and modeling is active. The flip side of it is, 물론, 위험 관리. 여기에, I think innovation lags actually behind catastrophic events. Once we have a financial crisis, 예를 들어, we do a post-mortem, figure out what went wrong and try to implement safety guards. But the next failure, 물론, is going to come from some other, 전적으로, unexpected angle.
What is the role of Risk Management in a bank?
Risk taking and risk management are two aspects of a bank’s day-to-day business. These two aspects seem in conflict with each other, but the conflict is no accident. It is through fine-tuning this conflict that a bank implements its risk appetite. It is like a dynamic equilibrium that can be tweaked as desired.
What is the role of vendors?
내 경험에, vendors seem to influence the processes rather than the methodologies of risk management, and indeed of modeling. A vended system, however customizable it may be, comes with its own assumptions about the workflow, lifecycle management etc. The processes built around the system will have to adapt to these assumptions. This is not a bad thing. At the very least, popular vended systems serve to standardize risk management practices.
를 읽은 후 Ashtekar에 의해 종이 양자 중력과 그것에 대해 생각에, 내가 빅뱅 이론을 내 문제가 무엇인지 실현. 그것은 세부 사항보다 근본적인 가정에 더. 나는 여기에 내 생각을 요약 것이라고 생각, 사람이 다른 사람보다 내 자신의 이익을 위해 더.
클래식 이론 (포함 SR 및 QM) 연속 무 등의 치료 공간; 따라서 용어 시공간 연속체. 이보기에서, 오브젝트는 연속 공간에 존재하고있는 연속 시간 서로 상호 작용.
시공간 연속체의이 개념은 직관적으로 호소하고 있지만, 그것은이다, 최상의, 불완전한. 고려, 예를 들어, 빈 공간에 회전 몸체. 이 원심력이 발생할 것으로 예상. 지금 몸이 정지 상상하고 전체 공간은 주위 회전. 그것은 어떤 원심력을 경험하게 될 것입니다?
그것은 공간이 비어있는 죽음 인 경우 어떤 원심력이있을 것입니다 이유를 알기 어렵다.
GR함으로써 자연이 동적 만드는 공간 - 시간에 인코딩 중력에 의해 패러다임 변화를 도입, 오히려 빈 죽음보다. 따라서, 질량이 공간에 휘말려됩니다 (시간), 공간은 우주와 동의어가된다, 그리고 회전하는 본체 질문은 답변을 용이하게. 예, 그것을 중심으로 회전하는 우주하는 경우는, 몸의 회전에 해당 있기 때문에 원심력을 경험하게 될 것입니다. 그리고, 하지, 그것은하지 않습니다, 그냥 빈 공간에있는 경우. 하지만 “빈 공간” 존재하지 않는. 질량의 부재, 더 시공간 형상이 없다.
그래서, 자연스럽게, 빅뱅 이전 (일이 있다면), 어떤 공간이 없습니다, 도 실제로 어떤있을 수도 “전.” 참고, 그러나, 빅뱅이있을했던 이유 Ashtekar 종이 명확하게 명시하지 않는. 그것을 얻는 가장 가까운 BB의 필요성이 GR 공간에서의 타임 중력의 부호화에서 발생한다는 것이다. 중력이 인코딩에도 불구함으로써 동적 공간 렌더링 시간을, GR은 여전히 부드러운 연속으로 시공간을 취급 — 결함, Ashtekar에 따라, QG는 해결할 것.
지금, 우리는 우주가 빅뱅으로 시작 받아 들일 경우 (그리고 소 영역에서), 우리는 양자 효과를 설명해야. 시공간 양자화하고 양자 중력을 통해 수행 될 수있는 유일한 방법 오른쪽이어야. QG을 통해, 우리는 GR의 빅뱅의 특이점을 피하기 위해 기대, 동일한 방식 QM은 수소 원자에 바운드 바닥 상태 에너지 문제를 해결.
내가 위에서 설명한 것은 내가 현대 우주론 뒤에 실제 인수로 이해하는 것입니다. 나머지는 수학 건물이 실제의 상단에 내장되어 있습니다 (또는 참으로 철학적) 재단. 당신은 철학적 기초에 더 강한 전망이없는 경우 (또는 귀하의 의견은와 일치하는 경우), 당신은 어떤 어려움 BB을 받아 들일 수. 불행하게도, 나는 서로 다른 전망을 가지고 있습니까.
내 견해는 다음과 같은 질문을 중심으로.
이 게시물은 쓸모 철학적 사색 같은 소리 수 있습니다, 하지만 일부 콘크리트를 할 (내 생각에, 중요) 결과, 아래에 나열된.
- GRBs 및 라디오 소스 내강 붐인가? (IJMP-D에 게시 한 기사, 중 하나가 된 “최고 접근 기사” 저널의. :-))
- 라이트 소요 시간 효과 및 우주 론적 특징 (출판이 일을 시도.)
이 전면에 수행해야 할 많은 일이있다. 그러나 다음 몇 년에 대한, 내 퀀트 경력에서 내 새로운 책 계약 및 압력으로, 나는 그들이 자격이 심각성과 GR 우주론을 연구하는 시간이 충분하지 않습니다. 나는 나 자신이 너무 얇은 패스를 확산의 현재 위상되면 그들에게 돌아갈 수 있도록 노력하겠습니다.
This sounds like a strange question. We all know what space is, it is all around us. When we open our eyes, we see it. 보는이 믿는 경우, then the question “공간은 무엇입니까?” indeed is a strange one.
공정하게, we don’t actually see space. We see only objects which we assume are in space. Rather, we define space as whatever it is that holds or contains the objects. It is the arena where objects do their thing, the backdrop of our experience. 환언, experience presupposes space and time, and provides the basis for the worldview behind the currently popular interpretations of scientific theories.
Although not obvious, this definition (or assumption or understanding) of space comes with a philosophical baggage — that of realism. The realist’s view is predominant in the current understanding of Einstien’s theories as well. But Einstein himself may not have embraced realism blindly. Why else would he say:
In order to break away from the grip of realism, we have to approach the question tangentially. One way to do it is by studying the neuroscience and cognitive basis of sight, which after all provides the strongest evidence to the realness of space. 공간, 전반적으로, is the experience associated with sight. Another way is to examine experiential correlates of other senses: 소리는 무엇인가?
When we hear something, what we hear is, 자연스럽게, 소리. We experience a tone, an intensity and a time variation that tell us a lot about who is talking, what is breaking and so on. But even after stripping off all the extra richness added to the experience by our brain, the most basic experience is still a “sound.” We all know what it is, but we cannot explain it in terms more basic than that.
Now let’s look at the sensory signal responsible for hearing. As we know, these are pressure waves in the air that are created by a vibrating body making compressions and depressions in the air around it. Much like the ripples in a pond, these pressure waves propagate in almost all directions. They are picked up by our ears. By a clever mechanism, the ears perform a spectral analysis and send electric signals, which roughly correspond to the frequency spectrum of the waves, to our brain. 그 주, so far, we have a vibrating body, bunching and spreading of air molecules, and an electric signal that contains information about the pattern of the air molecules. We do not have sound yet.
The experience of sound is the magic our brain performs. It translates the electrical signal encoding the air pressure wave patterns to a representation of tonality and richness of sound. Sound is not the intrinsic property of a vibrating body or a falling tree, it is the way our brain chooses to represent the vibrations or, more precisely, the electrical signal encoding the spectrum of the pressure waves.
Doesn’t it make sense to call sound an internal cognitive representation of our auditory sensory inputs? If you agree, then reality itself is our internal representation of our sensory inputs. This notion is actually much more profound that it first appears. If sound is representation, so is smell. So is space.
|그림: Illustration of the process of brain’s representation of sensory inputs. Odors are a representation of the chemical compositions and concentration levels our nose senses. 소리는 객체에 의해 생성 된 진동 공기 압력 파의 맵핑. 시야에, 우리의 표현 공간, 아마도 시간. 그러나, we do not know what it is the representation of.|
We can examine it and fully understand sound because of one remarkable fact — we have a more powerful sense, namely our sight. Sight enables us to understand the sensory signals of hearing and compare them to our sensory experience. 효과, sight enables us to make a model describing what sound is.
Why is it that we do not know the physical cause behind space? 결국, we know of the causes behind the experiences of smell, 소리, 등. The reason for our inability to see beyond the visual reality is in the hierarchy of senses, best illustrated using an example. Let’s consider a small explosion, like a firecracker going off. When we experience this explosion, we will see the flash, hear the report, smell the burning chemicals and feel the heat, if we are close enough.
The qualia of these experiences are attributed to the same physical event — the explosion, the physics of which is well understood. 지금, let’s see if we can fool the senses into having the same experiences, in the absence of a real explosion. The heat and the smell are fairly easy to reproduce. The experience of the sound can also be created using, 예를 들어, a high-end home theater system. How do we recreate the experience of the sight of the explosion? A home theater experience is a poor reproduction of the real thing.
In principle at least, we can think of futuristic scenarios such as the holideck in Star Trek, where the experience of the sight can be recreated. But at the point where sight is also recreated, is there a difference between the real experience of the explosion and the holideck simulation? The blurring of the sense of reality when the sight experience is simulated indicates that sight is our most powerful sense, and we have no access to causes beyond our visual reality.
Visual perception is the basis of our sense of reality. All other senses provide corroborating or complementing perceptions to the visual reality.
[This post has borrowed quite a bit from my book.]