Sunday, November 21, 2021
  There. I relinked your missed AI point and raised you two links.

MindMatters continues to track the odd journey of Avi Loeb.
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, spoke at a recent Ignatius Forum on his differences with “the scientific mainstream” about the evidence for extraterrestrial life. Perhaps in part because the venue was the Washington National Cathedral, Loeb felt motivated to reflect on the religious as well as the science implications of a search for extraterrestrial life.

"In finding advanced extraterrestrial intelligence, religion might simply reflect advanced science with a twist. Traditional religions described God as the creator of the universe and life within it. They also suggested that humans were made in the image of God. But these notions are not necessarily in contradiction with science. A sufficiently advanced scientific civilization might be able to create synthetic life in its laboratories — in fact, some of our terrestrial laboratories almost reached that threshold. And with a good understanding of how to unify quantum-mechanics and gravity, an advanced scientific civilization could potentially create a baby universe in its laboratories. Therefore, an advanced scientific civilization might be a good approximation to God."

Loeb told Cathedral Dean Randy Hollerith that he is not himself a “person of faith.” But one must assume that he means simply that he is not an adherent of a traditional religious belief system. The extraterrestrials he describes are currently as much a belief system as any other; they are not, of course, traditional.
Hollerith? I remembered that Herman IV was an Episcopal Bishop. I can't believe that another Hollerith, who is also a Bishop, is unrelated. And sure enough Randolph is Herman's brother.

The MindMatters article slides right past this unique link of religion and science. Loeb, who is trying to restore the link via aliens, is talking with a priest who is the great-grandson of the founder of computing.

I had some stupid nerdy fun with Herman IV....

= = = = = START REPRINT:

I like to watch for interesting dynastic descendants, and I like to watch for dynastic names that go beyond III. The whole I II III thing is growing obsolete, but IV and V have always been rare. Ran into a double hit in an article about sneaky dealings among the Episcopalians.
An attorney representing the Bishop of Los Angeles before a church hearing panel investigating him for misconduct, has conceded the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno had entered into an agreement to sell the rectory and parish properties of St James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach.

On 22 June 2017 Julie Dean Larsen, the deputy chancellor of the Diocese of Los Angeles, wrote to the hearing panel chaired by the Bishop of Southern Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Herman Hollerith IV, that her client had not been able to answer their questions of June 9. 14 and 21 if he had made a deal to sell the property, because he had signed a confidentiality agreement with the buyer.
Hey! We got a IV and we got an unexpected descendant. Herman Hollerith IV. Is he really the IV from THE Herman Hollerith? Looking up, the answer is yes. Unlike many inventors, the original didn't get tangled up in lawsuits or lose everything when his company was sold. He stayed with IBM as a consultant and made a comfortable amount of money, then retired. His descendants remained prominent citizens.

Of course the name should be written as a Hollerith constant,

21HHERMAN HOLLERITH IV

to honor the constant Hollerith tradition.



Should the number be treated separately as an integer variable? Probably not. It's an ordinal, not a cardinal; and it's an ordinal that isn't always properly sequenced. Henry Ford II was actually Henry Senior's grandson.

In more modern languages you could handle it as an associative index...

As a dict in Python:

HermanHollerith =
{
'I' : 'Herman Hollerith',
'II' : 'Herman Hollerith Jr',
'III' : 'Herman Hollerith III',
'IV' : 'Herman Hollerith IV'
}
print HermanHollerith['IV']
Herman Hollerith IV

= = = = = END REPRINT.

And of course this ties back to abacuses in Nature and the IBM DCL with its Roman numeration.

Footnote for clarity: The ID types enjoy mocking Loeb. I can't do that. I think he's wrong about his comet, but he's a proper scientist. He's careful to distinguish facts from theories, and he's never arrogant or condescending. Those qualities are unique among publicly visible scientists now.

Labels:

 


<< Home

blogger hit counter
My Photo
Name:
Location: Spokane

The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.

My graphics products:

Free stuff at ShareCG

And some leftovers here.

ARCHIVES
March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / December 2014 / January 2015 / February 2015 / March 2015 / April 2015 / May 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / September 2016 / October 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / January 2017 / February 2017 / March 2017 / April 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / July 2017 / August 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / November 2017 / December 2017 / January 2018 / February 2018 / March 2018 / April 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / July 2018 / August 2018 / September 2018 / October 2018 / November 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / February 2019 / March 2019 / April 2019 / May 2019 / June 2019 / July 2019 / August 2019 / September 2019 / October 2019 / November 2019 / December 2019 / January 2020 / February 2020 / March 2020 / April 2020 / May 2020 / June 2020 / July 2020 / August 2020 / September 2020 / October 2020 / November 2020 / December 2020 / January 2021 / February 2021 / March 2021 / April 2021 / May 2021 / June 2021 / July 2021 / August 2021 / September 2021 / October 2021 / November 2021 /


Major tags or subjects:

2000 = 1000
Carbon Cult
Carver
Constants and variables
Defensible Cases
Defensible Times
Defensible Spaces
Equipoise
Experiential education
From rights to duties
Grand Blueprint
Metrology
Natural law = Sharia law
Natural law = Soviet law
Shared Lie
Skill-estate
Trinity House
#Whole-of-society

Powered by Blogger