You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘philosophy’ tag.
The 7 Rules of Trust
By Shlomo Maital
I am a very frequent visitor to Wikipedia, founded by Jimmy Wales and a colleague in 2001 – a generation ago. It is a largely reliable and up-to-date source of key information, right at your fingertips. And lately, it is being attacked by right-wing fanatics, as being ‘biased’. Meaning – it fails to support far-right insanity.
Wikipedia is a phenomenon. Wales could have leveraged it to become a billionaire. Most people would have. Instead, he has steadfastly kept it as non-profit, ad-free, and hence objective. (Note, for instance, that Google and Apple have now prevented people from uploading videos of ICE police attacks on innocent victims – lest the 47th President retaliate.
Wales has now written a book, The 7 Rules of Trust, zeroing in on a key issue, perhaps THE key issue facing humanity today – lack of trust in political systems, democracy, and leadership. We have lost trust, because it is now possible to disseminate conspiracy theories, lies, calumny, attacks, and fables, and have people who subscribe to the respective media believe them implicitly – including some of the most outrageous stupid vicious lies. (Example: The Jewish religious rite of circumcision is a cause of autism! By none other than the US Secretary of Health, no less!).
Wales writes common sense. Use the working hypothesis of trusting others, so they will trust you. It is reciprocal. Use critical thinking on everything you are told by leaders — verify and trust. Wikipedia, he argues, is a metaphor or method for restoring trust.
A colleague and I once challenged ChatGPT to find an innovate method for establishing greater trust in society. Fakepedia, it said. Establish a website where fake news is debunked and its author(s) exposed.
Jimmy? Fakepedia? In a sense, Wikipedia IS a kind of fakepedia, because it offers truth while other websites offer lurid lies.
OpenAI: Who Am I?
By Shlomo Maital
Who am I? Can we find out about ourselves with AI?
Posting on the Medium website, Mohammed Bakry proposes the following prompt, to ask AI about someone and dig through the Internet for information:
“Do intensive research on XXXXXX and give me a massive report on everything you find. Find the needle in the haystack — something unexpected — so I can reach out with a surprising personal connection.”
So I tried it on myself. Here is the result (with my annotation):
Shlomo Maital is a renowned figure, [false; beware of AI obsequious flattery] primarily recognized for his contributions in the field of economics and innovation management. As a professor and senior researcher at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, he has influenced both academic circles and industry practices significantly. Maital’s work often emphasizes the practical application of economic theory in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship.
One of his noteworthy roles has been as the Academic Director of the TIM-Technion Institute of Management, which focuses on executive training and development. His research and teachings often explore the intersection of economic theory and real-world applications, striving to make complex concepts accessible to practitioners and policymakers.
Maital is also an accomplished author, having published several books and numerous articles on innovation management, creativity, and entrepreneurship. His writings frequently address the challenges organizations face in cultivating innovation and the strategies they can employ to overcome them.
An unexpected angle to explore when connecting with him could be his interest in the psychological and social aspects of economics. Maital has often focused on how behavioral insights can enhance economic policies, a topic that diverges from the traditional economic narratives and showcases his interdisciplinary approach. [Failed to mention my wife Dr. Sharone Maital, psychologist, who is and was an essential collaborator]. Engaging with him on how behavioral economics can drive sustainable innovation might serve as an unexpected yet impactful point of connection.
To reach out with a surprising personal connection, you might consider referencing his involvement with societal and educational initiatives, reflecting shared interests in how education can drive economic development and societal well-being. His emphasis on the human aspects in economic systems could provide a unique personal touch to your outreach.
[Missing: Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, light of our lives; our synagogue Ve’ahavta, and Rabbi Elisha Wolfin, with whom I do a weekly podcast on the Bible – a deep and meaningful activity; my column in Jerusalem Report, also a huge focus for me; the think tank where I now work, S. Neaman Institute, my second family].
OK — bottom line. Who am I? AI will not help much. Who is XX? AI won’t help much.
That’s a big relief.
God as a Working Hypothesis
By Shlomo Maital
Claude is an AI large language model (LLM) by a 2021 startup, Anthropic, launched by entrepreneurs who left OpenAI. Amazon invested $4 billion in Anthropic.
I have done a small experiment. I decided to write a blog on “God as a Working Hypothesis”. I hesitated, because matters of faith are very personal and individual.
I framed a few sentences in my mind. Then, I asked Claure to write 300 words on the subject. And the truth is: Claude did this task far far better than I did.
Here is what Claude wrote. Judge for yourself:
“God as a working hypothesis” is a concept that has intrigued theologians, philosophers, and scientists for centuries. It suggests approaching the idea of God not as an absolute certainty, but as a provisional assumption that can be used to explore and understand various aspects of existence, morality, and the human experience.
“This perspective allows for a more flexible and open-minded approach to discussions about faith and spirituality. Rather than demanding unwavering belief or outright rejection, it invites individuals to consider the implications and potential benefits of accepting God’s existence as a starting point for further inquiry and reflection.
“As a working hypothesis, the concept of God can serve as a framework for addressing fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the purpose of human life. It provides a lens through which to examine ethical dilemmas, explore the boundaries of human knowledge, and contemplate the mysteries of existence that science has yet to fully explain.
“Proponents of this approach argue that it allows for a more nuanced and intellectually honest engagement with religious and philosophical ideas. By treating God as a hypothesis rather than an irrefutable fact, individuals can critically examine religious teachings, cultural traditions, and personal experiences without feeling constrained by dogma or the fear of blasphemy.
“Critics, however, may argue that reducing God to a mere hypothesis diminishes the profound spiritual experiences and deeply held convictions of believers. They might contend that faith, by its very nature, transcends empirical evidence and rational argumentation.
“Nevertheless, viewing God as a working hypothesis can foster dialogue between believers and non-believers, as well as between different religious traditions. It creates a common ground for discussion, allowing individuals to explore the implications of divine existence without necessarily committing to a particular belief system.”
“This approach also aligns with the scientific method, which relies on hypotheses to advance knowledge and understanding. Just as scientists formulate and test hypotheses to explain natural phenomena, individuals can use the God hypothesis to explore existential questions and evaluate its explanatory power in various contexts.
“Ultimately, treating God as a working hypothesis encourages intellectual curiosity, promotes open-mindedness, and allows for a more inclusive conversation about spirituality and the nature of reality. It acknowledges the limitations of human knowledge while still engaging with the profound questions that have captivated humanity throughout history.”
Dark Matter: The Dark Mystery
By Shlomo Maital
Think about it. There could be an entire cosmos, universe, co-existing with our own, but – entirely invisible to us, because its own laws of nature are utterly different from ours, and the stuff it is made of does not interact in any way with the stuff WE are made of.
This is not science fiction. It comes from a leading theoretical physicist at Cal Tech (California Institute of Technology, in Pasadena), Kathryn M. Zurek, writing in The Economist (March 18).
Here is an excerpt: “.dark matter might not be one particular particle – it may be a whole hidden sector of dark particles and forces. In this dark sector, particles would interact through their own independent forces and dynamics, creating a hidden world of cosmology running parallel to our own. There could be dark atoms…held together by dark electromagnetism. [there might be] huge dark atomic nuclei…helping form supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. [Note: There is such a huge black hole in the center of our galazy, the Milky Way].”
Professor Zurek concludes: “The fundamental nature of the dark matter that pervades our universe is still unresolved.”
Conclusion: We don’t really know what the universe, i.e. we, the people, is made of. We know 5%. One in twenty. 70% is dark energy. 25% is dark matter. So our ignorance embraces 95% of our universe.
So – I am an economist. We claim to know everything, while knowing basically zero.
The physicists happily, gleefully, joyfully, admit to knowing almost nothing.
If I were starting college again, I would probably become a physicist. It is better to know some of the key questions, James Thurber wrote, than to pretend you know all the answers.
Dark Matter Is Changing & Evolving
By Shlomo Maital
What do we know about our 13.8-billion-year-old universe? A lot – and very little.
We know that 5 per cent of it is comprised of atomic matter – particles. They interact with us, and we can see them, study them, smash them to pieces and examine what comes out. 25 per cent is dark matter – matter that we cannot see, that does not interact with other particles and is invisible. 70 per cent is dark energy – energy that also does not interact with existing matter and so is invisible.
Conclusion: 95% of the universe is a total dark mystery to us. We know this, because if the universe comprised only the matter we observe, its rate of expansion should be slowing as cosmic bodies grow more and more distant from one another and gravity weakens.
Instead, we observed that the universe is expanding – at a faster and faster rate! Only dark matter and dark energy can explain this.
Projecting dozens and hundreds of billions of years into the future, at the current rate the universe goes dark – because objects become too far apart for us to see, and the sun has long ago gone dark, using up its helium.
But wait! There is new evidence, from DESI, dark energy spectroscopic instrument, atop an observatory in Arizona’s desert. Dark energy, it was found, is evolving, changing. It is not constant. So, we could well NOT have the cosmos go dark, but rather, stop expanding, and collapse inward, implode – and cause a new Big Bang.
I envy the physicists. They have the world’s biggest mystery to solve — and I sense their energy and joy at not yet knowing in the least what the universe really is and how it works.
And we humans? Who think we know everything? Not even close.
How to Get to the Root of the Problem
By Shlomo Maital
Let’s say you have a tough problem. You want to get to the root of the cause.
But how?
Ask a five-year old.
Really. Ask a kid. Because – they get to the root of things, by the method of ‘rood cause analysis’, RCA, used widely by systems experts diagnosing crashes, by computer engineers designing software… in general, by the hi-tech experts.
The method was used eons ago by kids, long before silicon. It’s called “the 7 Question Path to Enlightenment”.
Here’s a fictional conversation with one of my grandchildren.
Why are there people on Earth? Because they descended from primates, monkeys and apes. Why are there primates? They too descended, from other mammals, through evolution. Why are there other mammals? Well, see, this fish figured out how to move from the sea, breathing oxygen through its gills, to the land, breathing air through lungs. Where did the fish come from? It began with single cell living things, created by a combination of the right chemicals in a warm sea. Where did those single cell things come from? From the oceans, created when the Earth cooled from boiling, and when rain began to fall. Why didn’t the oceans just evaporate, as they did on Mars? Gravity. What causes gravity? And what is it? … Uh….
There we have it. The root cause. Life on Earth, because of…gravity. But..what in the world is gravity? Truth is, we do not truly know how gravity works or what it really is – Einstein’s theory of relativity is a start.
Root cause? Overweight? Out of shape? Tired? Financial problems? Ask why. And then again. And again. Either you get to a dead end…or the root cause. And even dead ends sometimes are very helpful, right? They tell us what we need to explore in depth more thoroughly.
Is the World Aleatoric? Or Epistemic?
By Shlomo Maital
Question: What is your view of the world? Is the world “aleatoric”? Or “epistemic”?
Sorry for the two-dollar words. Aleatoric means random, uncertain. Epistemic means unexpected things occur, but only because we have not yet acquired sufficient knowledge. In short, is the world inherently random, unpredictable, or is the world full of the unknown BUT KNOWABLE eventually?
I spent my life working in Academe. People I work with are epistemic. Academics believe that their research will turn the unknown into the knowable. And a great deal of scientific research does that. One possible (though not inevitable) result, is that those with higher education believe in a distant God, or none at all, as we ourselves become God, in the sense of understanding scientific causality, rather than divine intervention. Academe is epistemic.
But what if the world is really aleatoric? Divinely aleatoric? That is – events are random, but the Divine hand is present in ways we do not understand, nor will we ever. This is a variation on purely random, aleatoric world.
Example? In 1945 US Secretary of War Henry Stimson persuaded President Harry Truman NOT to bomb Kyoto with the first US atom bomb. Experts felt that destroying Japan’s cultural capital and historic priceless treasures would strike a war-ending blow. But as a 19 year old, Stimson had visited Kyoto and loved it. He argued vehemently in two long meetings with Truman NOT to bomb Kyoto. Result: Hiroshima was chosen instead.
Is this epistemic? Or aleatoric? Moreover — US B-29 bombers with the second A-bomb arrived at their second target – and found it covered with clouds. They had to divert to an alternate: Nagasaki. So both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, and their inhabitants decimated, by a virtually random cause – a trip by a teenager, and the vagaries of weather. Aleatoric? Epistemic?
Scientists reported yesterday that they have models that can predict crowd movements, that today seem random. Really? Will we humans one day know EVERYthing? Einstein fought quantum mechanics of Bohr, saying God does not play dice with the universe. Some of us may believe, true – but it LOOKS like he does, and because we will never truly understand divine intervention, we might as well treat the world as divinely aleatoric, with God in the background (e.g. Bette Middler’s wonderful song “God is Watching Us ….At A Distance”.
What is your own view?
Incidentally: Quantum computers are proving many times more powerful than conventional ones, based on the fact that a piece of information (bit) can be either zero, or one, or some probability inbetween, and the probability is an infinite set of fractions… making that ‘bit’ many times more powerful than its being either zero or one (as in conventional computing).
Quantum computing uses the aleatoric world in an epistemic manner (we figured out how to USE IT!).
A head scratcher.
Abduction: How AI Thinks: Like We Do!
By Shlomo Maital
How does AI think? Until now, we haven’t really understood this; AI is often referred to as a ‘black box’ even by its inventors and developers.
Now, in a New York Times article (Dec. 16), Peter Coy explains some research, in which researchers did a brilliant and rather obvious thing – They asked AI to tell us how it is thinking! And here is the result:
AI thinks as we do. By abductive reasoning!
What is that? So, naturally, I asked ChatGPT to explain it:
“Abductive reasoning is a logical process in which an explanation is inferred from the available evidence, even though it may not be the only possible explanation. It’s often described as “inference to the best explanation” because it seeks to identify the most likely cause or reason for a set of observations, even if all the facts are not known.
“Unlike deductive reasoning, which moves from general principles to specific conclusions (certain), and inductive reasoning, which involves drawing broad generalizations from specific instances (probable), abductive reasoning aims to find the most plausible explanation given incomplete information.
In other words: Hey? Don’t know the answer?! Well – take a shot at it. Take a guess.
ChatGPT’s example of abductive reasoning:
You walk into a room and see a puddle of water on the floor. Possible explanations (hypotheses): 1. Someone spilled water 2. The roof is leaking. 3. The window was left open and rain came in. Using abductive reasoning, you consider the available evidence (the puddle of water) and evaluate the most plausible cause. If you know that there was a heavy rainstorm earlier, and the window is slightly open, you might conclude that the rain came in through the open window, even though you can’t see the exact cause. Based on the best explanation, you might infer that the open window is the most likely reason for the puddle of water, even though there could be other potential causes.”
AI is often lambasted, criticized, because it fantasizes – makes wild guesses when it doesn’t know the answer. Well, so do we humans! Abductive reasoning, connecting the dots that seem unconnected, often generates powerful innovative ideas. AI makes inferences, sometimes wild ones. Programmers are striving to ‘cleanse’ AI from this – when it may be one of its most powerful advantages!
So — the one thing we thought AI lacked, creativity, is actually something it does have. Abduction, linking X with Y.
Holy smoke!
Thermodynamics and the State of the World
By Shlomo Maital
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with time. Entropy is lack of order or predictability; or gradual decline into disorder.
What does that have to do with the state of the world?
At present, entropy is the defining word. Disorder. Trump wins the presidency in the US and threatens mayhem. Russia drags North Korean soldiers to the front in Ukraine. Iran threatens Israel with drones, rockets and who knows what. The Gaza/Lebanon War drags on. (This morning, many Israelis again were sent to bomb shelters). In Amsterdam, crowds of angry Muslims assault Israelis there for a basketball game; several are injured. China employs ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’, challenging US leadership. Israel’s PM fires the defense minister in the midst of an existential war and appoints a party hack in his place.
The entropy list is long and broad and deep.
It does seem that at the moment, entropy is not only increasing in the world, but soaring, spiking.
So?
Can we take comfort in knowing that entropy is not all bad. Static. Frozen order. Nothing really good comes from a system that is unchanging; it isn’t broken but it is not so great either.
Our world system is broken. Including democracy. But out of the entropy, there will emerge a new dynamic functional order. This happened in July 1944, when at Bretton Woods the US and its allies reinvented the global economic and financial system, in the midst of a terrible war. It will happen again. The process is painful – entropy is awfully stressful, especially when our perspective is day-to-day and we only see the tips of our noses, if that.
Good will emerge from the world entropy that prevails today. And as the Book of Genesis notes, in the very first sentences, the world emerged from chaos. Disruption is a vital component of world-changing hi-tech and innovation. It is not always a good thing. But sometimes, incredibly good things do emerge.
Can we take some comfort in this?
TIMnovate 