我想我是这个无神论系列做. 然而, 我碰到这一段距离韦恩戴尔斯的书, 你神圣的生命. 我的一个朋友是什么削弱了它作为一种告诫我们这些谁不相信.
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. 你看, 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, to me, a prized possession.
The atheist-theist debate boils down to a simple question — Did humans discover God? 或, 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 “知道” 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, 例如) 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, 例如). 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.
教授. William Lane Craig is way more than a deist; he is certainly a theist. 事实上, 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; 至少, not in an enumerated and sequential fashion I plan to do here.
最近, I have been listening to some debates on atheism by Christopher Hitchens, as recommended by a friend. Although I agree with almost everything Hitchens says (said rather, because he is no longer with us), I find his tone bit too flippant and derisive for my taste, much like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am an atheist, as those who have been following my writings may know. Given that an overwhelming majority of people do believe in some sort of a supreme being, at times I feel kind of compelled to answer the question why I don’t believe in one.
这篇文章是我的反应在编辑的版本 网络研讨会 由Wiley-金融FINCAD组织面板讨论. 免费提供的网上直播是在后链接, 和包含来自其他参与者的响应 — 保罗·威尔莫特和埃斯Huag. 这个帖子的扩展版本稍后可能会出现在威尔莫特杂志的一篇文章.
当我们用正常的谈话的话风险, 它有一个负面的含义 — 中击中一辆汽车的风险, 例如; 但中奖彩票不是风险. 在金融, 风险是正反两面. 有时, 你想置身于某种风险抵消其他一些曝光; 有时, 您正在寻找具有一定风险的回报. 风险, 在这种情况下, 几乎是相同的概率的数学概念.
但是，即使在金融, 你有一种风险，那就是始终为负值 — 这是操作风险. 我的专业兴趣，现在是尽量减少交易和计算平台相关的操作风险.
衡量风险，最终归结为估计为东西功能丧失的概率 — 损失和时间的典型的强度. 因此，这就像问 — 什么是失去一百万美元或200万美元，明天的概率或后一天?
我们是否可以衡量风险的问题是问的另一种方式，我们能否找出这个概率函数. 在某些情况下, 我们相信我们能够 — 在市场风险, 例如, 我们有很好的模型，这个功能. 信用风险是不同的故事 — 虽然我们认为我们可以衡量它, 我们学到了艰辛的道路，我们可能不能.
现在的问题是如何有效的措施是, 是, 在我看来, 就像问自己, “我们究竟有多少概率做?” 如果我做一个奇特的计算，并告诉你，你有 27.3% 失去明天百万概率, 你用的资料片是什么? 概率有一个合理的意义只是一个统计意义, 在高频率的事件或大合奏. 风险事件, 几乎从定义, 是低频事件和一个概率数目可能只有有限的实际用途. 但作为一个定价工具, 准确的概率大, 尤其是当你的价格与深入的市场流动性工具.
在风险的创新有两种形式 — 一个是在风险承担方, 这是在定价, 仓储风险等. 在这方面, 我们做得很好, 或者至少我们认为我们做的很好, 而在定价和建模创新是活跃的. 它的另一面是, 当然, 风险管理. 这里, 我觉得创新实际上是滞后的灾难性事件的背后. 一旦我们有一个金融危机, 例如, 我们做了验尸, 弄清楚什么地方出了错，并尝试实施安全卫士. 但接下来的故障, 当然, 是将来自一些其他, 完全, 意想不到的角度.
承担风险和风险管理是银行的日常工作，日常业务两个方面. 这两个方面似乎在相互冲突, 但冲突并非偶然. 它这种冲突，银行实现其风险偏好是通过微调. 它就像一个动态的平衡，可以进行调整的期望.
在我的经验, 厂商似乎影响的过程，而不是风险管理的方法, 并且确实建模. 一个自动售卖系统, 然而定制它可能是, 自带的有关工作流自己的假设, 生命周期管理等. 该系统围绕构建过程将不得不适应这些假设. 这不是一件坏事. 最起码, 流行的自动售卖系统有助于风险管理实践规范.
The Asian Tsunami two and a half years ago unleashed tremendous amount energy on the coastal regions around the Indian ocean. What do you think would’ve have happened to this energy if there had been no water to carry it away from the earthquake? 我的意思是, if the earthquake (of the same kind and magnitude) had taken place on land instead of the sea-bed as it did, presumably this energy would’ve been present. How would it have manifested? As a more violent earthquake? Or a longer one?
I picture the earthquake (in cross-section) as a cantilever spring being held down and then released. The spring then transfers the energy to the tsunami in the form of potential energy, as an increase in the water level. As the tsunami radiates out, it is only the potential energy that is transferred; the water doesn’t move laterally, only vertically. As it hits the coast, the potential energy is transferred into the kinetic energy of the waves hitting the coast (water moving laterally then).
Given the magnitude of the energy transferred from the epicenter, I am speculating what would’ve happened if there was no mechanism for the transfer. Any thoughts?