What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_Who Knows]

If you go back to that Cave Story (in the link you gave) and allow Peggy to "not be tempted" except when she feels like it, then how can Victor ever eliminate the possibility that she is lying to him? Fifty percent of the time she will come back by the wrong corridor and say "I wasn't feeling like it that time so it doesn't count."

I believe the example pointed out that over time (after enough samples), you can statistically eliminate this. (kinda like flipping a coin 20 times in a row - it's just not going to be heads every single time).

[_asbestosman]

I never heard of the Zero-Knoweldge Proof, so, thanks for that link. Interesting idea, and obviously useful.

If by "fatal" you mean "different from the way science works" then -- yes it is fatal.

My ZKP is only different from other science in the sense that while one might be able to prove it to onesself, one cannot prove it in front of other scientists. The vital distinction with ZKP is that it allows for justified knowledge while yet being unable to prove this to other people. Yet despite the inability to prove the knowledge to a third party, the one experiencing it could know for certain (or with great probability) that the knowledge is correct.

With that caveat hanging over your experiment, the method of religious experimentation is perfect pseudoscience.

Why did the palm reader get my mother's birthday wrong? Because there was a skeptic in the room. Or because she's having an off day. Or because the stars are out of whack. Or because her familiar spirit has a hairball.

I don't' completely have the answer, but I think instead of wrong answers, God may simply refuse to answer. Peggy simply wouldn't come down. Instead we have people mistaking Peggy's sister for Peggy. I think it takes effort to attune yourself to the Spirit and knowledge from God. I know that allows for big mistakes in the beginning, but I think it's more like learning how to be a good hunter/tracker. One can eventually become quite skilled in discerning the Spirit.

I also believe that it is falsifiable. However, I do not believe that others can falsify it for me. It was only personally verifiable and so it is only personally falsifiable. I believe that one could know it was false one truly and sincerely (in their own honest estimation, not mine) tried to follow the commandments and found that it didn't work--that the promises were not true--that they do not find happiness and enlightenment from it. A palm-reader scenario wouldn't work because it's out in the open for others to verify.

[_Who Knows]

Now I grant that this is not immediately applicapble to faith. If I am not Peggy. I am more like Victor. I (Victor) know that God (Peggy) knows the secret to happiness, but since I do not, I cannot prove it to you. There are some other technical details I haven't worked out, but I think this is more or less how it works. I think each of us (Victor) must go to God (Peggy) and learn for ourselves that God does indeed posess the hidden knowledge.

The other flaw with this example is that 'the answer' is not passed from one individual to another - only the 'proof' that the individual has the answer is passed.

If we use moroni's promise as an example - i can ask god whether he knows if it's true, and (using this idea) the only thing I'll get back is whether God knows if it's true - you won't find out the actual answer to the question (yes or no that it's true).

[_Gazelam]

I didn't say I agreed with the math thing, I just thought it was interesting. Who says the universe is 14 Billion years old?

Sometimes I just throw things out there.

[_Who Knows]

My ZKP is only different from other science in the sense that while one might be able to prove it to onesself, one cannot prove it in front of other scientists. The vital distinction with ZKP is that it allows for justified knowledge while yet being unable to prove this to other people. Yet despite the inability to prove the knowledge to a third party, the one experiencing it could know for certain (or with great probability) that the knowledge is correct.

I don't think that's right. ZKP is verifiable by anyone. The only thing being verified here is that 'someone has the answer'. The answer itself isn't being communicated. Why do you say that this process is not verifiable in front of others?

[_asbestosman]

The other flaw with this example is that 'the answer' is not passed from one individual to another - only the 'proof' that the individual has the answer is passed.

If we use moroni's promise as an example - I can ask god whether he knows if it's true, and (using this idea) the only thing I'll get back is whether God knows if it's true - you won't find out the actual answer to the question (yes or no that it's true).

I believe the scenario can be changed such that God can prove that He knows the Book of Mormon is true without revealing precisely how He know it.

It may also be that can prove that He's trustworthy and knowledgable about many things. Once that trust is established you can take his word for it. Some security protocols use the idea of a nonce in a three-way handshake. One computer encrypts a number, and the other computer (who presumably shares this secret) can prove that he knows that secret by decrypting the number, incementing it by 1 and then re-encrypting it. He also encrypts his own nonce which the original computer receives along with the incremented number. That way both computers can know that each knows the password without actually sharing that password. Perhaps something similar could work with God.

[Analytics]

I don't think that's right. ZKP is verifiable by anyone. The only thing being verified here is that 'someone has the answer'. The answer itself isn't being communicated. Why do you say that this process is not verifiable in front of others?

You're right that ZKP could be verified in front of an audience. However, if only one person at a time could verify, then there would be no way for that person to prove that he indeed verified it to others who had not been there themselves.

When I say it isn't for an audience I mean that God does not usually perform in front of an audience--especially an audience of skeptics. I don't make the rules. It's all up to God and His wisdom.

I also believe that many people can and do verify that the church is true. Some of them may even do so in small groups. However, I do not think any of them can prove it to anyone else. In general, I think most of us verify it in private with God although any of us are privileged to go though the verification process--old, young, bond, free, male, female, etc.

[_Sethbag]

I think it takes effort to attune yourself to the Spirit and knowledge from God. I know that allows for big mistakes in the beginning, but I think it's more like learning how to be a good hunter/tracker. One can eventually become quite skilled in discerning the Spirit.

How is this any different than a new Jehovah's Witness eventually learning how to think of and give all the "correct" answers to questions from other Jehovah's Witnesses? How is this anything other than a person getting the hang of this Jehovah's Witnesses thing?

If one must an expert hunter/tracker to discern the true witness from God and a false witness, on what basis does anyone ever conclude that a witness is in fact from God? How do they know when they've reached the standard of reliable hunter/tracker, and aren't simply making a mistake again, for the millionth time?

And how is a witness from God a reliable indicator of truth if one must learn to separate the true witnesses from the false witnesses, without some kind of objective standard by which to judge between them? Is that how we tell people to pray about the Book of Mormon? Here, read this, pray about it as stated in Moroni. You may not get the "correct" answer at first, because you're not very good at discerning the correct answer from the incorrect answers, but keep trying and eventually you'll figure it out?

[_maklelan]

So the validity of an individual's faith is decided by the integrity and cohesiveness of the combined whole of all faith?

No - the validity of an individual's faith is only applicable to that one individual, and says nothing about any other faith.

Does this only mean religious faith, or does it mean all faith?

[_Who Knows]

You're right that ZKP could be verified in front of an audience. However, if only one person coult verify, then there would be no way for that person to prove that he indeed verified it to others who had not been there themselves.

Sure he could. He could lay out the methods used. And anyone could re-produce the exact same result using the exact same process. That's how he would 'prove' it. In essence, the method has been proven. As it has in this case (statistically).