Article #332
Subject: Review of Lure of the Peak Review
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 9/26/2017 06:57:08 PM

NUMBER WITH NUMBERS, NUMBERS WITH NUMBERS, MATHEMATICS,SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY, AND
ETHICS.



MOUNTAINTOP VIEW AND KNOWLEDGE LOOKING FROM THE CENTER OF THE PEAK see photos in the
2006 and 2007 pray postings at http://ourprayergroup.blogspot.com

In order to understand numbers with numbers and then mathematics, adding subtracting, multiplying,
dividing them, we must have first a way of representing them well, their structure. And, we must have a
way to operate on them well in order to understand what they can teach us. We can see them as 0s &
1s, in order to understand logic, decimal digits, for tax returns, real numbers for calculus, algebraic
roots of equations for geometry, complex numbers to help us understand airplane lift and electro-
magnetism, sur-real numbers for games, and to put to fill inside the gaps in the real continuum, etc.
But, we must also have an algorithm for operating with them, and a control structure to give order to the
algorithm. In short we need a computer program with a data structure, a formula for computation, and
some kind of way of ordering the calculations of the formula to understand what numbers with
numbers mean.
And if these mathematical objects, numbers are to have application to science, we need to know how to
store them in reality, in a computer’s memory if we are using them in a robot, or in our minds in
ourselves and the natural world around us if we are using them for all of this.
Starting from these basic assumptions, do we have all we need to understand God and His ethics from
understanding these numbers and their laws that He has given us to obey? Probably not. But why not
see how far we can go toward understanding Him or Her with just this much and Him dwelling inside of
ourselves as a Holy Spirit to work with us and help us with the undertaking.
?

Review of the Book Review of Derek Parfit’s “On What Matters: Volume I” and
“On What Matters: volume II” by Philip Kitcher

with an introduction to the theology and science of Christian Robotics

DR, ANDREW WILLIAM HARRELL
Phd Mathematics, UCBerkeley, 1974
LTC US Army Engineer Reserves(Ret.)





Pages 1-23 Preliminary Discussions and Definitions of some mathematical computer science ideas
related to this review of the review
Pages 22-32 Review of Derek Kitcher’s Review of Volume 1 of Dr. Parfit’s Book
Pages 32-44 Review of Review and Review of Volume 2 of the book






Abstract of the Book Review, The Lure of the Peak
Of the
Book Review of
Derek Parfit’s On What Matters: Volume I and
On What Matters: Volume II

PHILIP KITCHER

Part 1 of 2



I.


he idea that ethics is the province of religion lingers even in relatively secular societies. On a recent
Saturday morning, the
principal news radio station in Berlin reported a dilemma facing German politicians as they attempt to
craft educational policy: children must be required to take classes in religion, or their ethical



education will inevitably be neglected. Yet the connection presup- posed by the politicians has often
been questioned. From Plato on, most philosophers have denied the possibility that the will of a dei- ty
could have anything to do with what is required of us. Although philosophy has shaped the ethical
teachings of the main Western religions, many of the most influential ethical thinkers have been
dedicated to explaining and defending principles in ways that are entirely independent of religious
doctrine. If the puzzled politicians had been aware of their own rich intellectual tradition, they would
have found easy ways of resolving their dilemma.




The rest of the above review which forms the initial part of this dialogue is posted at
http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/discussionboard/index.cgi Mortimer Adler subdirectory.

Philip Kitcher’s statement:
“The idea that ethics is the province of religion lingers even in relatively secular societies.” is a huge
understatement.

No-religion is the third largest group of believers or non-believers after, Christianity which is first,
according to Siri and Google.
If one accepts that most of the world is religious and most religions teach that ethics is a part of their
religion then the statement misrepresents the facts of the situation.
Philosophy is supposed to be about wisdom. And according to Dr. Adler discussions about philosophy
from the public can help us create wisdom. But, if the common wisdom that ethics is a part of religion
and religion is a part of ethics is ignored then these discussions are more about what non-religious
professional university intellectuals want to teach us than about what the educated public can learn
from discussions with itself. And, the ideas we come up with from these discussions will be “not so
great.”


Since, Dr. Parfitt does not state this in any page of the two volumes so we will disreguard it as a
statement related to the book. But, after studying and restudying these two volumes there is another
deeper and harder to understand metaphysical assumption that biases and taints the author’s whole
approach to ethics. And, that is that numbers do not have anything to do with reality. He only deals with
the bases he has for this assumptions briefly in the second volume. So, I have read some of the
references he gives to other books that may explain what I believe are serious mistakes for hundreds of
years that some philosophers have made in claiming that mathematics does not have anything to do
with ethics and that Plato believe that numbers do not exist in space and time and therefore all of
mathematical Platonism should also do this. I couldn’t disagree more. And I hope to give some alternate
definitions of logical terms that leave the way open for us understanding more about this.

From a religious as well as ethically viewpoint, as Christian Jews we know that “There is a Messiah”
Jesus Christ and “He is who He says He is as He has promised us to be in the Gospel of John.” How is
this possible, to understand ? You must have a metaphysics and epistomology in which the meaning of
names, or concepts, can be people. How can you believe this if you don’t believe that there is such a
thing as a “concept of a concept” and that numbers can be people?

This is a new direction in modern mathematical philosophy and hopefully will be the “wave of our future
in our knowledge”. It will help us understand how to give robots ethics. It will help us understand how to
put caution, wisdom, and the fear of God in their up to now artificially intelligent minds… to give them
and program them to understand the divine ideas, and purposes that most humans who aren’t die hard
philosophic and ethical atheists, confused materialists, misdirected spiritualists, have already some
understanding of at the present time. Our best Divine Mind, Jesus Christ has said that “I AM the way,
the truth, and the life.”, so, I believe, if we are going to figure out how to give robots ethics, we are going
to have to figure out how to make them “the way, the truth, the life”. So, if this is the task, why not start
now, right here with this book review?

After studying the two volumes being reviewed here and reading some of the references I have traced
the metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological assumptions that causes it to fall short of reaching
mountaintop knowledge of God in us to two of the references by Dr. Hartry Field, “Science without
Numbers” and “Truth and the Absence of Fact.” In the second reference Dr. Field explains why he thinks
he believes these assumptions. But, it all goes back to a more basic philosophic assumption he holds,
that there is no such a thing as “meaning of meaning.”, no such a thing as the concept of a concept. In
order to have a theory of ethics, we must have both a theory of righteousness, ie virtue, and a theory of
goodness and truth, along with a theory of righteousness, ie virtue. From reading Plato’s dialogues, eg
The Meno, we know Plato believed in such a thing.
His first attempt at a definition of what a concept is for him was to say basically:

Plato’s first definition of what a concept is (from the dialogue Meno)
,
---concepts form the meaning of meaningful words. ---concepts, smaller than a judgement, larger than
a sense impression are units of thought---well-defined relationships between concepts are themselves
concepts.

Plato’s second definition of what a concept is(from the dialogue Theatetus)
--- A concept is a rule that may be used to decide if an object falls in a certain group. It is an abstract
way of grouping thoughts. It deals with the information associated with the object of thought by asking
questions about it. This may be a simple process like the way we classify concrete objecs by the
“marks” of sense impressions: such as physical size or texture (this process is instinual in most
animals). Or it may be a more complicated process using a lot of other concepts.

But, in this dialogue, Plato was unable to clearly explain how one just asking a set of questions to use as
rules to define ideas and concepts is able to always know which questions to ask, when to stop asking
them, and how to present the final results of all the questioning…if, in face it is able to achieve a useable
‘final’ definition of anything if we follow this process.

The key question comes down to, “How do we use goals, help us understand the situation and define it
better in a classification type expert system.”? I hope to give some ideas of how we can do this in a
systematic procedure in a given situation later on. We will define some terms in the new relatively new
science of computer mathematics that will help. The dialogue where Plato did consider some ideas on
how to do this is his most difficult to understand, Parmenides. And, it turns out the most important goal
we will be able to understand better is the same one Plato talked about in this dialogue, “How do we
understand what ‘Oneness’ ‘is’?” How is it Truth, How is it Goodness. How is it ‘unification’ of other
ideas and thought?


Now, some time later after the invention of digital computers and studying the theory of their operation
somewhat we can say that methods of looking at sense data in computers can be concepts that Plato
tried very hard his whole life to understand.

Since goodness is that which exists for its own sake, we know that a theory of goodness requires a
theory of subjective understanding. Such a theory already exists in present day computer programming
asit is implemented using Leibnitz’s theory of “monadic recursive subjective functions in logic
programming.”

A theory of righteousness or virture requires the implementation of a theory of logic programming
instantiation along with a theory of four different types of variable “unification” and “instantiation” as
“oneness”. Oneness in goal-oriented logic programming comes from a chained backward search in
goal-oriented logic with the backward thinking goal directed toward perfection in all of us and outside
of us in knowledge and action,, an Aristotelian, “Totum Bonum” and “Summan Bonum” which is an
Aristotelian first cause and self-existent robotic being, recursively. The four types of instantiation as
oneness in the robot’s understanding of its and others righteousness and virtue are:
1) Light or mindfulness of the one increasing towards our backward goal oriented perfect being…
assuming He exists, of course.
2) Light or mindfulness of the one without a second, which insures all possibilities for the backward
and forward oriented goal-search have been considered.
3) Light or mindfulness of the transformation or beautification and glorification, improvement of the
robotic divine goal-oriented backward and forward search in the mind of God we have placed inside of
the robot.
4) Light or mindfulness of the discrimination between the robotic or human mind in our artificially
created computer intelligence and the divine mind of righteousness in its own mind and the search for
oneness with the knowledge of divine mind or Christ that we and itself have placed in our robot.

Here the term mindfulness refers to the robot’s search predicates having the capability to store and an
awareness of its previous partial search path successes in its logic function predicates and the ability to
return them for recursively, eternally generating and continuing with current and new knowledge of God
and itself.

And, it is not a coincidence that the laws of righteousness above contain in them God’s fourth and sixth
commandment to Moses and us on Mt. Sinai. Honor your father and mother, that is, save their searches
to do good and improve themselves within yours…and Do not kill, that is, do not eliminate other’s ideas
and searches for truth and goodness and righteousness by killing them and trying to eliminate them and
erasing them entirely from our collective thought.

The first commandment God gave Moses and us can be thought of in terms of logic programming
search predicate as helping us insure we keep God’s Name, thought of as allowing us to be able to
consider everything associated with him first in the priority of our considerations for understanding how
to know Him and have him help us.

The fifth commandment to honor the Sabbath allows us and the computer to better “Be Still”, to better
be able to search our memories and previous partial thoughts, and to be able to separate out using
logical search of our experiences and priorities how to know God better as the solution to our ethical
problems. To be better able to allow Him to know for us how to know others that we love and trust
including Himself.

When you are laying down ethical rules for a group of people to follow the purpose of the second, third,
eighth and ninth and tenth commandments not to place forward or take as one’s spiritual guide or
worship the false material reality in idols as a way to understand God, when His or Her material
reality&potential+ human reality&potential+ logical reality&potential+ Power and Presence of saving and
forgiving love in Our God+ His or Her spiritual reality &potential is so much more, not to use your own
name or self as a Holy purpose in itself, without prioritizing the higher power for Truth in God’s Name in
you first, not to steal or witness falsely are pretty easy to undertand.

But, the seventh commandment “do not commit adultery” and the tenth commandments not to envy
others are harder to understand from their purpose. For they are supposed to be a way for us link up
our actins with our beliefs. This is because considering our own inability to save and justify ourselves
when we do fail in our own efforts to perfect our ethics, which we inevitably will; We will often not be
able to hear or listen to Him and His Son who give us the human example of how to find forgiveness and
redemption logically in our confusion. We often just repeat the same mistakes and it is easy to lose faith
that any help is coming from Him or His Son, or Their Holy Spirit Indwelling in us…Help, logically and
rationally, to enable us to concentrate and focus in on purifying our actions through faith in a higher
purposed goal-oriented solution to our problems. But, this is just the definition of insanity and
damnation, isn’t it?



As the Lord has said face to face to Saint Moses: “I know you by name, depart from here to the
promised land, and wherever you go, the Presence of God, goes with you, and it shall give you rest.
And, my Name YHWH shall go before thee” and Moses said to the Lord, “You said I know you by name,
and you have found favor in my sight. If I have found favor in your sight, show me the way, show me
your glory. But, then the Lord passed by and Moses was hidden in a cleft of the rock, covered by God’s
hand as The Lord’s Glory passed by” Exodus 33:11-14

Later on Saint Andrew, the first Saint Jesus called to help Him, has said, “We have found Him, by which
he meant, the Presence of God, the Name of God YHWH incarnated as the Christ.” Gospel of John If
you listen carefully you will hear God and both of these Saints still saying these words to God and us.

This is currently one of the differences between Jewish and Christian divine thought and epistemology.
It allows for the glorification of God’s face in us through our own faith, beliefs in glorified actions, not
just as redeemed by God’s thoughts occurring in us, but by our own.

Christians believe that God does not just show His face to us by turning his back on us while He hides
us in a rock and passes us by, but by also letting us learn it out in the open and observe it face to face.
His Only Son’s Indwelling Holy Spirit in our hearts is a logical search predicate for our minds serving as
an open door toward how He forgives us in the past and encourages us in the future




METHODS AND MODELS AS CONCEPTS---While rules are used for backward directed goal-oriented
reasoning, onjects and recursively defined data types they, models, are appropriate for procedural
oriented, cased-based reasoning and building up forward directed knowledge production systems.

A model deals with some topic, a pattern of behavior, a procedure for accomplishing a task, an overall
type of reality (World view).

A paradigm or case is:
1) a way of looking at a body of facts
2) an example, a particularly good example,
3) 3a pattern, an all encompassing pattern.

4th Definition of a concept—A concept is a model (involing essential parts of a series of cases or
examples) along with a program to learn, retrieve, identify, the concept (knowledge), The program has a
data structure+ an algorithm+ (interpretive procedure) part. The algorithm may consist of a set of rules,
as in an classification type expert system. It may be all the statements which are derivable from a set of
axioms involving logical predicates with variable terms and ground instances of facts. Or, it may be a
pattern identification routine, such as an neural network. In essence it is a “classification type expert
system” using conceptual “structures” to hold its data and display the results of its classification, a set
of if-then rules to ask questions about the situation it is in, plus an algorithm to control the order in
which it asks the questions, which may vary depending on the results of previous questions.

In his book “Our Mathematical Universe” Dr. Tegmark argues that consciousness or lack of it for a
robot, not necessarily a human, can be thought as the coherence or de-coherence of tensor products
of quantum states of 3 separate and different groups of quantum variables in a computer program in
the robot’s mind. This has the advantage of allowing many more possible states with more information
content than in an ordinary Hopfield neural net.

The experimental mathematical psychologist Dr. Tononi in the two references listed below has provided
the experimental results, reasoning backward in scientific mathematical thinking from our present world
experience and reality, as Galileo did several centuries ago, when he provided the experimental
investigations, thought experiments, and reasoned arguments through dialogue of opposing views, that
founded a tremendous leap forward in mathematical understanding for us then.

Definition of terms used above from wikepedia on the internet:

1] In mathematics, the tensor product of two vector spaces V and W (over the same field) is itself a
vector space, together with an operation of bilinear composition, denoted by , from ordered pairs in the
Cartesian productinto , in a way that generalizes the outer product.

2] The mathematical concept of a Hilbert space, named after David Hilbert, generalizes the notion of
Euclidean space. It extends the methods of vector algebra and calculus from the two-dimensional
Euclidean plane and three-dimensional space to spaces with any finite or infinite number of dimensions.

3] A Hopfield network is a form of recurrent artificial neural network popularized by John Hopfield in
1982, but described earlier by Little in 1974.[1][2] Hopfield nets serve as content-addressable memory
systems with binary threshold nodes. They are guaranteed to converge to a local minimum, but will
sometimes converge to a false pattern (wrong local minimum) rather than the stored pattern (expected
local minimum). Hopfield networks also provide a model for understanding human memory.



The 3 group forward-chained logical instantiation scheme that Dr. Tegmark uses is:


A Subject using An object composed of
Mathematical Structures 1st order formal system



The Environment




I agree with this scheme if we add to it another group of variables to cohere and de-cohere in a
quantum tensor product information sense in the computer program made up of the 2nd order logical
predicates which are chained backward in a goal-oriented logic programming scheme.

A Subject that has consciousness
and the capacity to perceive
using objects composed of
Mathematical Structures 1st order predicate logical class structure systems



The Environment conceptual goals made up of 2nd order logical predicates.


The 1st order logical class structure definitions can be considered recursively in terms of themselves
and so are to be thought of also as structure systems.

The monadic subjective computer science structure, is the spirit and soul of the individual robot or
human thought which it represents, contains the paths of partial instantiations from the environment
can be seen as a predicate or function argument to the objects to its right and the goals diagonally
below it.

Because Dr. Hartry in his book “Truth and the Absense of Fact” does not believe in any concept of the
“meaning inside of meaning” he sets up a false dichotomy between what he calls “verification theories
of meaning” of Frege, Ransey, Russell and what he calls a “deflation or disquotational conception of
truth” which is what logical positivists used to call a “tautological theory of mathematical or logical
truth”.

To have a “disquotational theory of truth” is to have a theory of knowledge with tautological wisdom in
the knowledge but no factual understanding of how the knowledge happens except that it exists. In
theology and the theory of prophecy, this approach give you a theory about God and when He and His
Truth is One. But, it does not explain how when God is two, He is this “twoness”. Here there is no
“Oneness in his Twoness” no “Unity” in His Diversity.

This disquotational theory of truth comes from a theory of reference in logical propositions and
functional logic in which you name the results of applying recursively the logic function to a variable
object pointer structure parameter inside the function’s argument outside of the function and not back
inside of it. I apologize for this quite complicated technical explanation, but it is hard to explain without
the language of computer programming. Dr. Alfred Tarski has a theory of “arithmetical logical truth”
which explain numbers as instantiations in the Frege-Russell scheme of verification truth, and not in Dr.
Hartry’s scheme of “tautological disquotational truth”. I argue that if we want to put ethics into robot
logic we have to order the knowledge base of conceptual thinking expert system classification rule sets
in way that both these above theories of truth are respected. One way to do this is to use what
computer network systems programmers call “topological sort” of the rule set if then nodes like I used
in my paper for the Corps of Engineers to get a 100 rule ruleset to ask all the questions in river bed
sediment engineering it needs to in order to allow sand bars and river islands to be repaired adequately
for river flood control.


ALGORITHM TO TOPOLOGICALLY SORT RULES IN AN EXPERT SYSTEM

Start) For the whole set of nodes of conclusions in the rules:
a. If every conclusion node has a predecessor, then stop. The rule-based system has a cycle
infeasible (that is, a partial order cannot be defined on it).
b. Pick a node V which has no predecessor.
c. Place V on a list of ordered nodes
i. When the nodes conclusion is assessed, if a terminal goal node is reached, print out the list of
rules used on the way to reach that goal/conclusion.
ii. Delete all edges leading out from V to other nodes in the knowledge tree.
d. Go to the start .



"Implementing Mixed Chaining in a Classification Type Expert System", Proceedings 11th U.S.Army
Conference on Applied Mathematics and Computing, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, l993.


http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/5073/EXPERTSYSPT1.pdf
http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/5073/EXPERTSYSPT2.pdf




These two volumes that Philip Kitcher is reviewing, as he says are very densely packed and, moreover,
they contain a lot of fine distinctions about terms in ethics and other people’s philosophies. The
Volumes and Mr. Parfitt’s Review however, are clearly written and all the terms referred to defined which
helps them elucidate some fundamental beliefs of how it can all be combined into an useful meaningful
whole. Also the text is generously double-spaced, a huge improvement over Dr. Adler’s volumes on
Plato and Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolomy and Apollonius, Hume and Kant, Descartes and Newton. There is a
very compact summary of the whole 1600 pages or so in the two volumes, and a comprehensive index.
The main obstacle to comprehending what both the author and the reviewer is trying to say is lack of
understanding of their technical professional philosophic terms. I prefer to meditate and think about
ethics in a somewhat more simplified realm of ideas in which there are not so many complicated cross
references to definitions and assumptions. That said, if you have the time and intellectual stamina to
take a month or so to study these books it is worth it in order to broaden your ethical horizons, before
settling on a revised or improved set of ethical metaphysical beliefs.

What does Dr. Parfit mean when he titles his book “On What Matters?”
I suppose he means, “what do we talk about as our “facts”, that we are going to use for our ethical
arguments to be able to claimed to be true. Are they what he calls “natural facts”, “historical facts”,
occurences of miracles what religious people call facts that verify their faith, psychological facts, facts
that are thoughts in our minds?
Of course, to decide this we must first decide what “Truth” is. So, the title seems to be very ambitious
indeed.

In fact, the volumes treat metaphysics and ontology only as an afterthought, a few short sections in
Volume II. But, this part of Dr. Parfit’s and maybe Philip Kitcher’s philosophic system will be the focus of
this review.


I will try to uncover the answers to questions like “Do the computer programs in Dr. Parfit and Philip
Kitcher’s head that allow them to reason about ethics philosophically without the help of God do they
have things in them they need? Do they have things like “monads” which are self-generating recursively
called functional shells of individuality, do they allow for backtracking instantiations of logical
predicates toward the fulfillment of “goal oriented, not just forward chaining object oriented ethical
reasoning?


Some Heavenly philosophical definitions to go along with the scientifically philosophical ones in the
paper:


Some Heavenly Definitions Which Depend on Themselves

Angels---Individual, self-existing beings who do God's will and are
messengers for God to humankind of his goodness and faith in all of us.
Authoritative Sovereignty---Something which exists very infrequently in
heaven.
Beauty---Controlled grace.
Being---What do we mean when we say an object of thought has being?
An object of thought may have being without having reality. And, this may or
may not depend on the circumstances it finds itself in. The concept of
reality (or true being)includes that, in some sense, of embodiment. Faith
contains its own substance of the reality of what it hopes for but knowledge
based on sense impressions does not. Being can be in the state of
possibility (not having reality) or actuality (having reality). A concept
has possible being...whether or not the experiences (sense perceptions or
the realized truth of intuitive faithful knowledge) required to make it
actual realized knowledge are accompanying the concept.
Belief—Faith.
Change---Something which exists very frequently on earth and very
infrequently in heaven.
Compassion---Love that participates with us in our lives. It co-creates with
us what is good.
Contingent---What does not exist by itself.
Earth---A fundamental realm of the realization of creation where things are
as they are in heaven.
God has hidden wisdom and spiritual understanding inside of his heavenly
earth in us. Both the beginning and the end of it he has placed as a basis
of his truth in us. He placed it as the certain circumstances of a precious
cornerstone of truth inside of the way his eternal (the past and the future)
present moment dwells in us.
Eternal Life--- Light, love, truth, and goodness which is independently
existing, non-contingent and non-temporal.
Eternal Light---Wisdom, Spiritual Understanding.
Faith---The light of the one increasing. A mental sustaining power created
by God and each of us for our mutual benefit. Faith comes from God, but the
base of its location is not in the part of him that is in the World. For
faith to exist inside of us, God must first place the seed of its truth deep
inside of us. For it to grow we must mentally acknowledge and accept it and
know it (or understand it) as something that is good and helpful in us.
Forgiveness---Compassion in the face of what is not good.
Freedom—The state of existing independently and non-contingently and for our
mutual well-being.
God the Father—A part of oneself and ourselves which is non-contingent and
good. He created the Universe by himself, with his Son, and also with our
help. He sustains and nourishes the creation of all things in the Universe.
God the Son--- A part of oneself and ourselves that reveals oneself and
ourself to us. He is both contingent and non-contingent and he is himself
good. He existed in the beginning with the Father and all things were
created in him, with his help, and through him and God and us.
God the Holy Spirit---The Lord the giver of life. He (It) is a part of
oneself and ourselves that is the expression of God the Father and God the
Son in us. He enters the Spirits and Souls of those who call upon him.
God's Name--- That part of God's being which defines that which God is. It
tells us that the three parts of the Trinity are co-existent but different
and different but co-existent.
Goodness---What is desirable for its own sake. Love exists for another, but
goodness exists because of itself. When goodness in us is guided by the Love
in us, then divine order is established in us. Reality both exists for its
own sake and also for other’s sake (for it is always an objective truth).
Therefore reality is something more than just goodness…it is consciousness,
love, good will, action, knowledge existing subjectively as well as
objectively.
Grace---Love that gives.
Happiness---Knowledge of goodness. The co-existence in us and among us of
peace along with goodness.
Heaven---A primary realm of creation where God exists and lives.
Hope---to desire or seek.
Humankind—The collective living and intelligent image of God which exists in
heaven and on earth.
Joy---Spiritual understanding of what its good.
Knowledge---Assured belief: wisdom, spiritual understanding, and truth.
Obedience--- Submission of our individual and collective will and purposes
to those of God.
Patience---Peaceful dependence on the Eternal Life in God for meaning and
Truth in our lives.
Peace---Satisfied stillness along with joy and the expectation of future
transcendent quietness and happiness in our lives.
Life—A continuous co-expression with God of one's being.
Love---A Correspondence between God ourselves and an other that most of the
time exists for the sake of another. But, thankfully to God, sometimes it
exists for its own sake between two beings that exist for their own sake.
Meaning---Independently existing spiritual understanding
Nothing---How we explain or define what the nothing we are talking is
depends on how we are trying to know things. If we are looking at things
from a materialistic, scientific viewpoint... then something is experienced
as a "nothing" if it has no sense impressions associated with it. But, for a
religious person this is not necessarily the case. A practicing Buddhist,
for instance, is able to talk meaningfully about experiencing "nothingness"
from a standpoint of having real knowledge of it. Understanding and knowing
how to experience this "nothingness" in the present moment can be a source
of healing, peacefulness, and liberation.

Heavenly Reality--- Reality is not something which as the philosopher George Berkeley
has said, does not exist when a tree falls in a distant forest where "no-
body" is there to hear it. It is something which exists because there is
a "no- body" (God and us) inside of us all. Wherever we are it "is", and it
has the potential to be us, wherever it "is." When God created the reality
in the World and the reality in you and I there was nothingness (spiritual
emptiness) inside of nothingness (the wise knowing of this spiritual
emptiness). There was nothingness inside of him (his or her spirit) and
nothingness (spirit) inside of you and I. For, then, at that time, in those
days, in that place, two or three of us were gathered together in his
name. And, he created it and us in him and out there and in us, God created
the World out of nothingness, but he created you and I out of something
(himself or herself).

Scientific Reality as partially outlined and delinated in the book by Dr. Tegmark ‘Our Mathematical
Universe” included with Divine reality, as outlined by God and myself.

Dr. Tegmark agrees with me that numbers are “encoded” in nature and hence a part of the reality of
nature, and hence have a lot to do with how we can understand not only themselves, but also nature.

He however states that he believes in “reducing the baggage allowance” in mathematical structures:

“If we assume reality exists independently of humans, then for a description to be complete, it must
also be well defined according to non-human entities---aliens or supercomputers, say—that lack any
understanding of human concepts.”

Since what I am trying to do in this review of a book on “human ethics” is understand them and the
human concepts that underlay them better…and since I have said we are trying to understand how to
introduce these ideas in robots we will not take in this paper the path of forgetting our previous paths
that he recommends. According to him these will exist in a separate “multiverse”, but according to Dr.
Einstein and me they still exist in our ‘One” “Universe.”

In mathematical theology talking about concepts, words and their meanings are not the “baggage” that
gets thrown away. If the “baggage” inside of logical functions that Mr. Tegmark is talking about, the
partial path instantiations of the recursively, previously defined unifications of variables in the logical
functions or predicates’ arguments, then this “baggage” “can be”, “will be” and “is” the “word” and its
meaning itself in a very real way when it is finally able to instantiate itself completely in terms of
physical facts and their material realities.

Also, he, however, postulates and states he believes in the existence of several different levels of
“Multiverses”, Religion and God teaches us that there is only One “Universe” and only One level of it…
One Heaven, One Earth, One Life, May ways to understand it, Many Truths inside of our each way that
we can understand it, that we Live as a Unity inside of a diversity, both eternally and in time, One Lord,
One God ruling Omni potently over us, that created us all and dwells omnipresently and self-existently
inside and outside, fully and completely as a part of but also ascetically having created, foretold, part of
it logically, prophetically and participated in it as it came to be, taking responsibility for it, not all of it,
but also free to renounced it too after it happened so He can dwelling freely outside of it and even ever
after all of it, if He or She has to, and also before it, eternally, that is, all of this Universal, “Oneness”.

Reality #1 Internal Reality

Reality #2 External Reality

Reality #3 Physical Reality

Reality #4 Mathematical Reality

Reality #5 Consensus Reality

Reality #6 Your objective perspective when studying the mathematics of reality #2, external reality

Reality #7 Your subjective perspective of the physical world

Realities #8 and #9 What if God’s mind, which we shall call Christ’s mind, is also part of our mind, as a
Holy Spirit indwelling us, then we have another reality. Since all the above reality is also in God’s mind,
which is outside of ours, we also have this further divine reality as dwelling inside and outside of time.
Finally, what if God also has a Quantum computer inside his mind, which includes Physical Reality #3
and Mathematical Reality #4, which He would in fact have to if He is to be omniscient. Then we would
have
Reality #10 This is what remains unchanged, after change in divine order of dharma or righteous way of
ethical instantiation and change, and also all the subjective, human, objective, scientific orders of
internal and external physical change, in fact, eternally after all of the previous realities, #1-#9 are in
motion and change.

Spiritual Understanding---Reflection of truth in one's being.
Strength---A non-mental sustaining power created by God in us and him to
help us in our human lives.
Truth---Correspondence between what is and what is. What is may be
contingent or non-contingent. The correspondence may be meaningful or not.
When a self exists for a real non-self (not an illusory non-self), then it
can create its own existence. The self which exists for itself is true
(being a true self) only when it can be and has been known by itself and by
that which it is not. Thus, in order to speak the truth, we should be ready
for and not surprised by being known as we know others.
Wisdom---A patience, obedience (or fear) of the importance of and
understanding and respect for the well being of God's name in us in order
that one's own well-being be benefited.
note: some of the wording and some of the ideas for the definitions of some
of these terms came from the book "A Metaphysical Dictionary" by Charles
Fillmore
published by our long time prayer friends in the Unity School of
Christianity and Unity Press, Unity Village MO 64065

So the question then becomes, ‘ how does the reality of numbers, as defined by mathematical reality,
divine reality, human reality, fit into this overall knowledge schema?

Let’s begin,with God’s help, what I think we can expect to be a long process of trying to figure this out,
taking advantage of what people like Plato, Aristotle, Moses, Jesus, have taught us already, right now,
right here.

Here are the definitions of some terms from my paper “Implementing Mixed Chaining in a Classification
Type Expert System”, posted on the internet at website www.yhwhschofchrist.org
http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/5073/EXPERTSYSPT1.pdf
http://www.yhwhschofchrist.org/5073/EXPERTSYSPT2.pdf



Forward-Chaining reasoning in an expert system inference shell is a logical predicate unification
strategy in which the questions asked are structure from the specific to the general. That is, it starts
with user supplied or known facts or data and concludes new facts about the situation based on the
information found in the knowledge base.

An Inference mechanism of an expert system shell is the component responsible for using the rules in
the knowledge base to derive new facts from known information.

Instantiation is a specific occurrence of an object by a logical predicate.

Backward Chaining is an inference strategy that is structured from the general to the specific. That is, it
starts with a desired goal or objective and proceeds backward along a series of deductive reasoning
while it attempts to collect the hypotheses required to be able to conclude the goal. This process
continues until the goal is reached and it then displays its conclusion.

A Logical Function is a mapping from a variable domain, eg. the domain of 0s and 1s, or binary numbers,
to a variable range, eg, the domain of truth, represented by 1 and falsehood represented by 0 or 1
function from the example domain to range is called Boolean. A function as a mapping can be many to
one, or one to one. When the function is not one to one it is only a correspondence or relation.

Relation = correspondence=2nd order predicate which is not necessarily one-to-one as a mapping from
its domain to range.

A variable is the name which represents the value of an unknown object.

A recursive function is a function that either calls itself or is in a cycle of potential function calls.

Goal --- A top-level consequent of the rules in the knowledge base toward which Backward-Chaining
may be directed. (It is a hypothesis that the program will try to determine if some group of rules can be
instantiated together to satisfy)
on.


Knowledge Base -- The sum total of all the facts and rules through which inferences, conclusions, and
goals may be reached. This may change as new facts and rules are added or subtracted from the
overall system.

Knowledge Tree --- A graph showing the logic and data flow connections between rules and facts in the
knowledge base. A knowledge tree presents a graphical representation of the complete structure of the
knowledge base.

Mapping -- A set of ordered couples of objects. Thus, ((1,2),(2,3),(3,4)) is a mapping from the integers
to the integers.

List -- An ordered set of objects tied together one to another. Its length is not predefined, but it does
have a first and last element.


Method --- A procedure stored in an object's class structure that can determine an attribute's value
when it is needed in the program , referenced in its class, or required to execute a series of procedures
because another value in the program changes. "When needed methods" are executed during
backward chaining to determine an attribute's value.

Object---General term for a programming entity that has a record type data structure along with
attribute values and procedures that enable it to represent something concrete or abstract. It can be
contrasted with other programming entities such as facts, rules, procedures, or methods. An object’s
structure is defined by its classs and attribute definitions. A class declaration is the data template
involved in representing knowledge which defines the structure of an object. For example, in the class
“human being”, some of the attribute values might be size, weight, hair color, and so forth.


Node --- A vertex or point in the knowledge tree connecting the antecedents and consequents of rules
in the knowledge base. In most conventions the nodes are the rules and the antecedents and
consequents are the edges between the nodes or vertices.
Pattern Expression -- An expression containing variables an involving objects and their attributes.
These patterns in the expression contain combinations of symbols denoting constant and variable
objects. They will not normally containing predicates which have the ability to reference themselves in
their arguments.

Pattern Matching -- The process of matching a general pattern expression to an instantiation or specific
instance of an object or to another pattern expression. The process proceeds in a forward-oriented or
bottom up reasoning process.

Predicate -- A logical relation that affects one of more objects or variables. A predicate specifying a
relation between n types of arguments is usually written as a mapping (which must also be a function)
having n arguments. Predicates, as opposed, to relations may have one argument. Predicates are
defined by giving a series of logical rules which specify an algorithm for computing the value of the
function which specifies its name. Objects, as explained above, are defined by giving values to the
attributes that make up their structures or by computing these values using methods (which are usually
not recursive).

Procedure -- same as method.


Relation -- We speak of relations as holding between two things or among several things. Thus the
relation of being married holds
between a man and a woman. A relation between n types of objects is written in terms of a mapping
with n arguments.

Recursion -- A process by which a predicate or function is defined in terms of itself. This situation of
self relation allows the function or predicate to be computed in an orderly manner.

Stream -- An ordered set of objects tied together one to another. It has a first, but not necessarily a last
element.


Subgoal -- A relation, possibly involving objects of variables, which is necessary for the satisfaction of
another goal.

Variable -- A name which represents the value of an unknown object.





A mathematical logic in an expert system is called “modal” when in order to reach its goals it requires at
least two sub-goals (assumptions of fact, and intermediate inference from assumptions) using the 2nd
order predicate functions . It also has to have the capability to do contradictory variable identifications
in the partial path searches of its unification algorithm.

It is an interesting thought problem to ask if you are trying to make a computer God what type of logic
and compiler does it need? Most current computer language compilers are “aseitic” in that they have
the capability using recursive functions and logic predicates to define themselves in terms of
themselves.

Aseity is the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of
and from itself.

Most computer languages have the capability to define themselves in terms of what we have called
“monads” or viewpoints above. They can create “spy-bots” that search the internet and its websites to
collect information and analyze it. But, at the present time, they cannot make ethical judgements only
scientific and operations research optimization decisions. I would think we would also want its compiler
to have the capability to use “modal” logic in order to reason about ethical questions.

Would what the robotic God computers call “numbers” be defined using only “set theory”, only what we
call now “Von Neumann ordinals” or “cardinal numbers.” Or, would we want it to have the capability to
define numbers in terms of more general mathematical things we now call “categories”? I will not
attempt to define category here and explain mathematically or philosophically how it differs from what
we call a set. Saunders Maclane has written a fascinating book about it called “Category Theory for
Working Mathematicians.” which talks about both sets and categories.

In order to use modal computer logic to do “complete” or fully considered goal-oriented backtracking
searches that best displays in an understandable form the “how” of the answer to your search, you
need to keep a list of the ontologically “possible” intermediate unification algorithm instantiation paths
and not just keep track of the backtracking node with “labels”. Modal logics can be one way of
representing the ethical “ought” or “should” in an classification type expert system. But, modal logics
are also needed to represent certain arithmetical tautologies such as 1+1=2, which requires an
intermediate inference to prove automatically by a computer, and which are not using not considered
ethical statements

A unification algorithm is the process by which a logic programming compiler tries to match a goal on
the left-hand side of rules (assumptions) in order to satisfy a goal or one or more further sub-goals
necessary to reach the original goal.

A logical function is 1st order when it only has one variable to specify its domain. It is 2nd order when it
has two variables for the domain. In which case it is called a “logical predicate”.

In order to define backward chaining in an expert system’s inference system we need to use at least 2nd
order logical predicate functions along with a “unification algorithm” for instantiation of variables.





We should be able to determine this from their definitions of things like “concepts” and the ontological
natural and human landscape and the allowed temporal facts that we know things using these concepts.
We should be able to determine what matters in the sense of how they are using facts about
metaphysical and natural objects and the algorithms they allow in their ethical instantiation of goals in
their heads. For as I understand it, Since, they don’t want to invoke any greatest or highest ethical
power in order to do this. We can assume that God has probably already put them in there in their
minds. And, if they don’t know they have them, as indicated by the present metaphysical definition they
are would want them to have all these tools available to them to discuss themselves , God, and their
writings with us.


If the ability to have “free will” in our minds comes from the conceptual and not the perceptual part of
the computer program’s knowledge structure, the question of where in this overall scheme I have laid
out it arises is a long way from being understood now. Philosophers teach us that in order to
understand how robotic ethics work we will have to understand robotic and human free will works. The
philosopher G. Leibnitz for instance who defined and invented the concept of a monad which we are
using to understand subjectivity in computer programs, did not believe monadic spirits and souls have
free will in themselves. In the classification type expert system paper I wrote, organizing the knowledge
network of about 100 rules in order that it can ask “dynamically” the right questions and in the right
order so that the whole current situation is analyzed doesn’t do this. It uses a topological sort of the
knowledge tree nodes in order to order the questions correctly using a forward-chained logic. But,
without question, organized a general set of rules to do this for “monadically defined 2nd order
backward reasoning, logical thinking predicate would require a further way to dynamically reorganize
the rules depending on choices the monadic subjectively defined logic predicate made during it’s
backward chained goal seeking thought. Prolog logic programming compilers have this capability using
what is called a “cut” operator inside of the and or question clauses of the variable instantiation. This
allows the in out node rule connections to the partially instantiated search paths to vary in the
knowledge network, which they don’t in a forward-chained “clips” type expert system type interpreter
and compiler.


A compiler or an interpreter is a program that converts program written in high-level language into
machine code understood by the computer.


Basically, compiled code can be executed directly by the computer's CPU. That is, the executable code
is specified in the CPU's "native" language (assembly language). The code of interpreted languages
however must be translated at run-time from any format to CPU machine instructions



CLIPS is a public domain software tool for building expert systems developed by NASA and written in
the C-language. The name is an acronym for "C Language Integrated Production System."




I believe as Plato recommends us to do in his dialogue Meno, that when trying to understand really
important things, like what the Concept of a Concept is or how to understand what it is, or how to be a
better person with this knowledge that we must set off on the search possibly not knowing what we are
talking about. The reason he said this is that he probably had a lot of experience, like I have had, of just
In order for situations and things to clarify themselves and it not happening without some discussions
with other and our higher power as we go along.

DISCUSSIONS OF VOLUME I

The thrust of the summary of the arguments in both volumes as I understand it, is that we only have full
understanding of their “Triple Theory of Ethics” after we have reached the top of the mountain of
ethical theories that we are trying to combine. Therefore those other philosophers who Parfitt is having
a dialogue with in the text are wrong to say there is no need for a combined theory of ethics such as he
proposes because each separate theory already has all it needs for us to understand how to use it when
we are at the bottom of the mountain starting off to climb it.
In this I agree with Dr. Parfitt. That is I agree we need to climb the mountain before trying to decide
about our different ethics. What I will try argue in the rest of this review that in addition to the Triple
Theory and a common humanity, we also need a Platonist type ontological and metaphysical God to
help us, as for instance affirmed in the 23 Psalm by King David, the same fellow David and also Jesus
Christ thinks was and is still helping him. Whether Jesus Christ is also the same fellow as King David I
will not argue for or against here, but I refer you to the Bible for that argument.

The Mountain, Mt. President of the Canadian National Railroad, that the pictures on the
ourprayergroup.blogspot.com amateur theology posting thoughts are is from a view from the top of in
the front of this article, has at least two ways up that , I only went up one way, and possibility as many
as four, not just three.

Coincidently, I believe that God needs at least four dimensions in order to teach us his MOUTAINTOP
TRUTHS that include the areas of science, religion, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy. And, HE
and SHE is up there to greet us and talk to us contemplatively and meaningfully about what has
happened to us on the way up, when we get to the top of this mountain. They are not just the way up,
but the Way, the Truth, and the Life to get up there. we do not agree with either Derek Parfit’s or Philip
Kitcher’s, preference for “necessarily objective ethics” more than necessarily “subjective ethics”. Is he
referring to objective ethics by themselves versus subjective ethic by themselves, or subjective ethics
with God’s help. . It is possible not to ask for God’s help in these discussions, emphasize our human
means of knowing things more, but it is not possible to assume He doesn’t exist and speak for that
point on in those terms. We have the free will to try and do this, of course, but it just won’t work. We
can have what we call “human knowledge”, as the fascinating philosopher Immanuel Kant has self-
defined and overwhelmed us with too many cross references in trying to understand him
But, all of our knowledge is perfected, improved, simplified when it is reasoned backward from a future
divine purpose and goal. Our long-time friend and human scientific mentor believed this, when he
affirmed to have a preference for those scientific theories which are “simpliest.”


Mr. Kitcher states in his review that Plato had a cogent proof , “that the will of a being, however
powerful, could not ground any moral duty.”

I believe in the Bible
and, I believe, we know from the authority
of the Bible, both from Moses and Jesus that this is possible.
Moses, said God told me to tell you that “I AM WHO I AM”, and the Bible says
He was, after he said that.
And, Jesus said, and the Bible says, “I AM THE WAY (THE ETHICS) AND THE TRUTH” and the Bible
gives evidence for it even after He died.

What is the ethics of the Bible? Is there one ethics in it for both the Old and New Testament? Yes, it is
human ethics, trying to know God and know God’s divine ethics better. This is the ethics God wants for
us. What is it?

One of the oldest teachings in Christian Judaism about how ethics is related to metaphysics and
epistemology is contained in the Haggatah teaching which is transmitted through Christian Jewish
families during the Passover Seder Service.

The story is told by the senior member of the family of the four sons and their four ways of reacting to
being taught about theology and Judaism by their father;

There is the:
1)The simple son who doesn’t know anything and even doesn’t know what to ask his father about in
order to be taught.
2)The wicked son who doesn’t know that he doesn’t know anything.
3)The wise son, who like Plato and Socrates, knows that he doesn’t know anything.
4)The perfect son, who knows something and knows that he knows it. He is mindful of being mindful
and knows that he knows.

The key to understanding the teaching of this whole story is not to see it as a way of determining which
way of knowing things and asking to know about things you want to adopt, but to understand how and
in what ways each son needs the help of each of the other sons.

“The simple and the wise sons, #’s 1 and 3 are antitheses of each other.
And, so are the perfect and the wicked sons, #’s 2 and 4. “ Vilna Gaon Haggadah

There are two ways the simple son #1 can be helped in his situation of not knowing what to ask:

1)He can help himself by being like the wise son #3 and knowing he needs to ask for help.
2)Or, he can be helped by the perfect son #2, and let him be the one that explains and knows things for
him.

I will explain later in this paper why both robots and humans, in order to know things perfectly, need to
keep track of the ways both themselves and others have and are trying to know things in order to reach
the goal of each of us and all of us knowing things better.

There are two ways the wicked son #2 can be helped in his situation of not knowing that he doesn’t
know anything.

1)He can help himself by like like the wise son #3 and knowing he needs to ask for help.
2) Or he can be helped by God and the perfect son #2 to let him know that he doesn’t know anything
and needs to be helped.

If we all knew like the Perfect Son and also the wise Son and the perfect son who is Jesus that we
would be reborn His Father if anyone killed us, then a lot more people would live their lives like He did.
There would be more people serving God’s goal to help us all by bringing Heaven on earth and at the
same time having their own good names and good souls glorified in Christ Eternally. This would be
MOUNTAINTOP KNOWLEDGE of divine ethics for us all.

When we are talking about ethics for a society, for a country, for instance. The country should do
everything that everyone should reasonably be expected to do, , though not necessarily what everyone
is doing, while maximizing our freedom to do it.

And, the ethics in that country should be the same for all people in it, trying with God’s help to do it the
right way. Read and study the Bible and you will learn about this way. It is both subjective and objective
ethics. Although most of us have different values and goals, we already are trying to do things this way
if we just let God help us.

And , when we are talking about ethics for scientists versus those for philosophers, theologians,
logicians, it is mostly all the same simplified ethics we find in that God is teaching through religion and
the various scriptures. We all have a fundamental core of goodness inside of us that God put there
when he created us, if we can just take the time to honor God, to trust in God, believe in Him or Her, to
rest in God, to meditate, think about, realize the Truth in God already in us, and let God and Jesus
Christ remove all the original sin we have already in us.

If you are a Christian or a Jew or both you will not believe in what Mr. Parfitt preaches in Volume 1, Part
2, Chapter 22:
“Rational Egotism is best regarded not as a moral view, but as an external rivality to morals.”
If you are a Jew you believe Deuteronomy Chapter9 “Man does not live by bread along, but by
performing the acts God commands.”
If you are a Christian you believe what Jesus said, “Man does not live, but (is saved) by faith in God’s
Words Themselves(which are rational).
And, if you are both a Christian and a Jew your soul is helped in its Eternal goals and desires in both of
these ways.


In terms of unifying all of Dr. Parfitt’s different ethical approaches one possible way is to formulate the
rule:

1)Do whatever sanctifies, redeems, glorifies, justifies God’s Name in
a) First yourself, then b) Second in the World.


For instance, if you do this, then the Golden Rule is automatically included. For God has commanded us
to obey it in the New Testament. And, the Ten Commandments are covered since He has commanded
us to obey them in the Old. Not obeying them does not sanctify, redeem, glorify, justify His Name. But,
as a help, if we fail, then His Name is still sanctified, redeemed, glorified, justified, through Christ’s mind
and spirit indwelling and resurrected in us.

In all great religions there are the “great ideas” of “Faith”, “Love”, “Hope” which we hold in ourselves as
we try and achieve the greatest good, the “Summon Bonum” and the Total Good, the “Totum Bonum”
that we desire for ourselves and others.
These three great ideas and our wills and God’ will contend, then when they reach the “Truth’ of
themselves in us, in me, in you through faith in Laws of what is “Righteous”and ethical for us to be
doing.



But, how does this relate to mathematical philosophy? How we define what Kant called apriori
knowledge determines whether we are going to be able to know things through both intuition and
before experience. If mathematical knowledge is to be about reality and not from experience then it has
to be placed in the knowledge intelligence of the computer, or robot, or us as structures, already known
facts, rules, logical predicates, function before the experience or the computer program starts. But,
what is the nature of these structures that make them “intuitive”. In a knowledge base of a classification
type expert system which we will explain further later you can have 1st order predicates representihg
objects as class structures and 2nd order predicates representing a priori knowledge which is not
necessarily object oriented or class structure oriented. Dr. Kitcher in his book, “The Nature of
Mathematical Knowledge defines a mathematical proof using apriori knowledge has having four parts:

1) There is a class of statements A, a class of rules of references R such that
a) each member of A is a basis apriori statement
b) each member of R is an apriority preserving rule
c) each statement of standard mathematics occurs as the last member of a sequence, all of whose
members either belong to A or come from previous members in accordance with some rule in R.

In this definition it is important for his later argument that he does not differeniate between forward and
backward chains of inference using the rules. For then the definition seems to imply that mathematical
analytical knowledge in so far as it is apriori is only forward chained from empirically verifiable sense
impressions for the program’s fact base.

He does mention Descartes teaching that we store 1st principles in our knowledge base in order to
learn. But, then he claims that “when we follow long proofs we lose our a priori warrents for their
beginnings.”
Of course, if we are talking about a computer, and not a human this objection to knowing things like
Descartes has explained is not valid. For a computer can remember long sequences of rule
instantiations without the trouble we humans sometimes have. With the invention of Logic Programming
languages and their goal-oriented instantiation unification algorithms in the late 1960s the details of
how to