faith
Table of Contents
faith1 is a choice of knowledge, or knolwedge of a fixed set of choices(assumptions).
In term of modal logic, faith could be defined in term of beliefs, or beliefs of the valance of propositions, such as “when advesary slap you in the left cheek, [you should] present your right”, “man are born good”.
Such propositions often have vague/hard-to-define meaning/objective or lots of alternative forms which can all be true, such as when advesary slap you in the left, you can [slap back], [slap harder], [call mass evidence], [call authority], [do nothing], [present right], [slap back later when they are vulnerable]… Each could be valid strategy and thus valid “you should” belief; and in term of their objectives, what would the bring about, or what do you want to achieve, or what is the meaning of those action, can be pretty vague, and we may have never think about them – present right, so they see violence is meaningless? slap back later so they will surely be destroyed and be out of your way? call mass evidence to mentain social record of advesary’s violence nature, so the social mechnism do what is right for the society?
If you have faith on a set of such propositions (beliefs, beliefs of valance of propositions, etc.; names of the same concept) \(P\), it is equivallent of saying that, for each \(p \in P\) and each pointed model \(M,w\), \(\models \Box p\) (or \(M,w \models \Box p\)). What world model I’m not too sure about, but at least temporal is a fit.
1. comment
I think there is a specific variation of model logic dedicated to faith and beliefs. I’m talking in term of the 2 kinds I’m familiar with: epistemic and temporal
Backlinks
natural science assumption
As a belief/faith system, natural science assume 2 simples rules about knowledge:
- [knowledge is public] The same piece of knowledge should have the same truthfulness no matter where. The world is the same one public object that we all interact with. example of that: In the US or in Australia, the speed of light is 300,000,000 meter/sec, human as we knew it often have 1 heart, force applied to object cause acceleration in a linear manner(\(F = ma\)), and diamond as we knew it have the same physical structure.
- [knowledge can be deterministically expressed and observed] We should be able to give a definite “true or false” answer to every piece of knowledge, and we should be able to observe the phenomenon the knowledge describes in order to do that. for example: “water + jalapenos would cause explosion in 5 minutes” is false, as we could just test it by puting jalapenos into a glass of water, and wait for 5 minutes. On the contrary, “given enough(or rather, infinite time), water + jalapenos would eventually cause explosion” is rather not verifiable, as it would require infinite time. Even “the explosion would happen in 75 years” is testable, and I think there is at least one such experiment in motion.
In addition to those 2 on knowledge, natural science is usually used with basic logic (propositional logic) assumptions and reasoning systems.
feeling design
(example)
- the song “happy” make me feel happy.
- I feel strong when I have done something against my nature yet comply with my faith.(stop binge-watching netflix)
faith is easy energy source
With faith, people easily stimulate motivation power, and get energy to go about pretty much everything: killing, loving, giving food and shelter to homeless, being homeless, etc.
The reason of that, I figure, is that as faith is in nature a set of assumptions, you can pretty much throw in anything to this set, and “assume” the fact, giving you a shortcut of rationale, so you don’t question yourself = be very confident about yourself, and I figure that’s where the energy is from: confidence. And bringing close the assumption helps establish confidence
faith is easy energy source
With faith, people easily stimulate motivation power, and get energy to go about pretty much everything: killing, loving, giving food and shelter to homeless, being homeless, etc.
The reason of that, I figure, is that as faith is in nature a set of assumptions, you can pretty much throw in anything to this set, and “assume” the fact, giving you a shortcut of rationale, so you don’t question yourself = be very confident about yourself, and I figure that’s where the energy is from: confidence. And bringing close the assumption helps establish confidence
faith in science is no difference than faith in god
faith is a set of assumptions
Although in science some assumptions and hypothesis can be proven wrong(the earth should be flat, “here’s what’s happening inside an atom”, etc.), there’s some assumptions that can not be shaken, such as “world is a public object; everyone is interacting with the same world” and “physics rules of world do not change”, “what we have observed is truthful”, or how logic reasoning works. This small set of assumptions is the faith in science.
Reflect on the faith in god, which is what faith first emerges or predominantly emerged in the cultural world, it is also a set of assumption that cannot be shaken - “[you should] love your neighbor”, “[you should] present your right cheek”, “you should not inbreed” etc.
Therefore, the faith in science is no difference than faith in god, in that in nature they are both set of assumptions that are defined to be used rather than changed.
However, there is difference of faith in science and in god in term of their size and domain, and specificly, their specificity
difference of faith in science and in god
The difference between faith in science and in god, I figure, is the size and domain they included.
confident
mental state of being sure of your action/knowledge, whatever reason or objective.
The mathematical model of intelligent agent’s confidence is a good example: if you have an agent predicting weather, it will be confident about its prediction that tomorrow will rain if from the prediction, 90% of the chances it will rain tomorrow; if you have an agent driving car, it will be confident about turning right if it have a .9 confidence on the action “turn right”. The reason or objective is irrelevent; What is relevent is consistency, safety and stability.
Therefore, the shakier your action/knowledge is, the less confident you will be.
Often, the components of confident are:
- somewhere up the line - a set of assumptions (faith)
- a reasoning system - algorithm of weather prediction; action policy(observation -> confidence of a series of actions), which allows you to get a confidence score on your action or knowledge (by reasoning on their truthfulness, stochastically or deterininstically)
- a set of options - for knowledge, possible right answers (tommrow: rainy, sunny, windy, code, hot…); for action, considered actions (to run, to exercise, to open computer, to drink water, to read book, to play game, to open music, to open youtube…)
And a series of tricks working each component could help you establish the confident state:
- perfecting reasoning system
- if you have a better algorithm, of course you’d be confident about your results - they deliver
- narrow options
- do not consider much options, and concentrate the whole option space each time you cut something out: for example, when you decided to go to the gym(which here is a random thought), you cut “start video game” out of the action space, then you only have 1 action to do, “go to gym”, and there’s nothing you can be not confident about it, as the option space only have 1 item, your confidence is 100%.
- bring assumption closer to options, to reduce work needed for reasoning system
- If your assumption includes “[you should] go to gym every 2 days, alternating exerces set A and B”, or better, “[you should] never drink alcohol”, there’s not much reasoning needed: you are just 100% sure you are going to gym now doing exercise set A with a look on the calendar, or when someone handed you a drink, just 100% sure you are not drinking it.
Backlinks
natural science assumption
As a belief/faith system, natural science assume 2 simples rules about knowledge:
- [knowledge is public] The same piece of knowledge should have the same truthfulness no matter where. The world is the same one public object that we all interact with. example of that: In the US or in Australia, the speed of light is 300,000,000 meter/sec, human as we knew it often have 1 heart, force applied to object cause acceleration in a linear manner(\(F = ma\)), and diamond as we knew it have the same physical structure.
- [knowledge can be deterministically expressed and observed] We should be able to give a definite “true or false” answer to every piece of knowledge, and we should be able to observe the phenomenon the knowledge describes in order to do that. for example: “water + jalapenos would cause explosion in 5 minutes” is false, as we could just test it by puting jalapenos into a glass of water, and wait for 5 minutes. On the contrary, “given enough(or rather, infinite time), water + jalapenos would eventually cause explosion” is rather not verifiable, as it would require infinite time. Even “the explosion would happen in 75 years” is testable, and I think there is at least one such experiment in motion.
In addition to those 2 on knowledge, natural science is usually used with basic logic (propositional logic) assumptions and reasoning systems.
feeling design
(example)
- the song “happy” make me feel happy.
- I feel strong when I have done something against my nature yet comply with my faith.(stop binge-watching netflix)
faith is easy energy source
With faith, people easily stimulate motivation power, and get energy to go about pretty much everything: killing, loving, giving food and shelter to homeless, being homeless, etc.
The reason of that, I figure, is that as faith is in nature a set of assumptions, you can pretty much throw in anything to this set, and “assume” the fact, giving you a shortcut of rationale, so you don’t question yourself = be very confident about yourself, and I figure that’s where the energy is from: confidence. And bringing close the assumption helps establish confidence
faith is easy energy source
With faith, people easily stimulate motivation power, and get energy to go about pretty much everything: killing, loving, giving food and shelter to homeless, being homeless, etc.
The reason of that, I figure, is that as faith is in nature a set of assumptions, you can pretty much throw in anything to this set, and “assume” the fact, giving you a shortcut of rationale, so you don’t question yourself = be very confident about yourself, and I figure that’s where the energy is from: confidence. And bringing close the assumption helps establish confidence
faith in science is no difference than faith in god
faith is a set of assumptions
Although in science some assumptions and hypothesis can be proven wrong(the earth should be flat, “here’s what’s happening inside an atom”, etc.), there’s some assumptions that can not be shaken, such as “world is a public object; everyone is interacting with the same world” and “physics rules of world do not change”, “what we have observed is truthful”, or how logic reasoning works. This small set of assumptions is the faith in science.
Reflect on the faith in god, which is what faith first emerges or predominantly emerged in the cultural world, it is also a set of assumption that cannot be shaken - “[you should] love your neighbor”, “[you should] present your right cheek”, “you should not inbreed” etc.
Therefore, the faith in science is no difference than faith in god, in that in nature they are both set of assumptions that are defined to be used rather than changed.
However, there is difference of faith in science and in god in term of their size and domain, and specificly, their specificity
difference of faith in science and in god
The difference between faith in science and in god, I figure, is the size and domain they included.
confident
mental state of being sure of your action/knowledge, whatever reason or objective.
The mathematical model of intelligent agent’s confidence is a good example: if you have an agent predicting weather, it will be confident about its prediction that tomorrow will rain if from the prediction, 90% of the chances it will rain tomorrow; if you have an agent driving car, it will be confident about turning right if it have a .9 confidence on the action “turn right”. The reason or objective is irrelevent; What is relevent is consistency, safety and stability.
Therefore, the shakier your action/knowledge is, the less confident you will be.
Often, the components of confident are:
- somewhere up the line - a set of assumptions (faith)
- a reasoning system - algorithm of weather prediction; action policy(observation -> confidence of a series of actions), which allows you to get a confidence score on your action or knowledge (by reasoning on their truthfulness, stochastically or deterininstically)
- a set of options - for knowledge, possible right answers (tommrow: rainy, sunny, windy, code, hot…); for action, considered actions (to run, to exercise, to open computer, to drink water, to read book, to play game, to open music, to open youtube…)
And a series of tricks working each component could help you establish the confident state:
- perfecting reasoning system
- if you have a better algorithm, of course you’d be confident about your results - they deliver
- narrow options
- do not consider much options, and concentrate the whole option space each time you cut something out: for example, when you decided to go to the gym(which here is a random thought), you cut “start video game” out of the action space, then you only have 1 action to do, “go to gym”, and there’s nothing you can be not confident about it, as the option space only have 1 item, your confidence is 100%.
- bring assumption closer to options, to reduce work needed for reasoning system
- If your assumption includes “[you should] go to gym every 2 days, alternating exerces set A and B”, or better, “[you should] never drink alcohol”, there’s not much reasoning needed: you are just 100% sure you are going to gym now doing exercise set A with a look on the calendar, or when someone handed you a drink, just 100% sure you are not drinking it.
Footnotes:
or belief