Knuth: All Questions Answered

sunhou writes: "The AMS published a lecture by Donald Knuth called All Questions Answered (pdf), where Knuth simply responded to questions from the audience. Topics ranged from errors in software ('I think Microsoft should say, "You'll get a check from Bill Gates every time you find an error"') to how he gets distracted by fonts on restaurant menus, to software patents. There were some really good questions (and responses)."

Comments

Re:some humor.....

[Broccolist]

On a more personal note, before you decide that you're too good to need God, and before you place yourself above those that have chosen Him, don't you think you'd better give Him a try? This is something that it would really suck to be wrong about...

I agree with the rest of your post. I'm agnostic, myself. But saying that you should believe in God just to be on the safe side, because you'll go to hell if He exists, is a logical fallacy. It's actually quite famous, and has a name, Pascal's Gambit. There are several problems with it, but the core problem is that you are reducing an infinite number of possibilities to an artificial either-or situation. It's not a simple choice between believing in a Christian God or believing in nothing at all: any number of deities could exist.

For example, if the Islamists are right, then Allah might be even angrier at me for believing in a Christian God than believing in nothing at all. Or, to be perverse, how about a deity with a sense of humor that sends atheists to heaven and religious people to hell? From the atheist's point of view, he has no evidence either way, and so, to him, this ironic deity has the same chance of existing as the Christian God. Therefore, it is not in his interest to change his beliefs: he has the same probability of going to hell either way. He may as well stick to what his reason tells him is true. Thus, Pascal's Gambit is a fundamentally unconvincing argument.