Re: Any prominent Christian mathematicians?

In article <ccfEk.845$kI6.204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, DKleinecke says...

[snip]

The human brain is greater in technology than any supercomputer man
has ever been able to produce.

That definitely depends on what you are trying to do.

No, it does not. You are artificially narrowing the scope of your considerations
to come out with the result you want.

If you are
calculating with numbers even a cell phone is smarter than a human
being.

No, because it took the smartness of humans to MAKE the cell phone. It was
specifically because of the smartness of humans that a cell phone CAN calculate
with numbers.

Not to mention: humans had to do it first. So this is a very poor way to compare
'smartness'.

People and computers do not do the same things.

Of course not. Computers can only calculate. They can only do the calculations
they have been designed and programmed to do. The human brain/mind can do all
kinds of things, even things evolution certainly never 'designed' it to do.

What is the evolutionary advantage in finding the complete classification of all
simple and semi-simple finite groups? None;)

So far the
human mind is better at pattern recognition than computers. And nobody
has really ever programmed a computer to be creative. The nearest
approach I know of to computer creativity is the behavior of
antagonists in the better computer games.

From just because one cannot see how something could come about one
cannot conclude that therefore it was a planned conclusion. There is,
for example, the paradox of the fifty million monkeys. If you keep
those monkeys going at it they will write the whole Bible (and add a
couple of commentaries). Billions of years is an awfully long time.

And "billions of years" is nowhere NEAR long enough for the monkeys in your
example to produce anything like the works of Shakespeare or the Bible. You must
not understand probabilities very well.

In fact, disproving your example was one of the first things Kittel & Kroemer
did in there excellent book "Thermal Physics": they did it to make the point
that there really are some events that have such low probability, we really are
justified in treating it as ZERO. Understanding this is an important
prerequisite to understanding thermal physics.

Perhaps a follow up posting will even be able to show its relevance to
understanding the "watchmaker argument" and it close relatives, too.


[snip]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Measure without tape measure.
    ... Extend your wireless network <snip> ... Anyway, no definition of 'protect'. ... numbers on my cell phone, but as I only have it for emergency use, I ... don't call people on my house phone, so no way I'd be interested in ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: What to do with a PhD in Computer Science...
    ... Anybody can unclog a pipe, but understanding why and preventing it may require some additional insight beyond knowing how to use a plunger. ... So - education not applied to your present paid position is excessive? ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: Beethovens 5th Symphony
    ... > understanding of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. ... The ceiling was painted in comic book colors. ... were purest puerile bullshit. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: More Religious debate
    ... A damn sight better understanding than having silly notions of gods, ... This has been demonstrated time and time again. ... placebo effect. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: A crisis in prayer
    ... pointed out the similarities between humans and animals. ... understanding. ... You insist that if I don't have it from first hand ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading