Tag Archives: jesus

January 26, 2026 · 4:20 am

AILIES: WHY AI WILL ALWAYS LIE

Copyright © 2026 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW AgenticOS™ and Hyperonomy™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This article is not about faith, religion or church. An English version of the Bible (any single translation) is used simply as a context…a use case …a test case.

The conclusions are the same: #AI #will #always #lie …even if you build a small, narrowly focused #LLM around a single subject.

Conclusion: Yes — almost all of it is still true.
Using only one single translation (e.g., just NIV or just NRSV) removes inter-translation disagreement, but it does not eliminate knowable lies for ordinary users.

What no longer applies (or is greatly reduced)

Inter-translation conflict

If the model is trained on only one translation:

  • It can’t contradict another English translation
  • It can’t blend wording across versions

So this specific failure mode disappears:

“The Bible says X” when another translation clearly says Y

But this is a narrow improvement.

What still applies (and why knowable lies remain)

1. A single translation is still not ground truth

Even one translation:

  • encodes interpretive decisions
  • smooths ambiguity in the source languages
  • chooses one meaning where multiple exist

So the model may assert:

“The text means X”

when the underlying text reasonably allows ¬X — a knowable falsehood once checked against scholarship.

2. Generalization beyond the text still occurs

LLMs:

  • extrapolate patterns
  • infer doctrines
  • merge nearby passages

This produces statements that:

  • are not stated anywhere
  • sound consistent with the text
  • are verifiably unsupported

→ knowable lies remain possible.

3. Coverage gaps are unavoidable

A Bible-only model still lacks:

  • modern history
  • natural science
  • detailed biographies
  • post-biblical theology

Questions outside the text’s scope force:

  • refusal, or
  • invention

Without strict refusal logic, invention = knowable lie.

4. Reasoning errors are corpus-independent

Logical errors arise from:

  • probabilistic prediction
  • lack of formal validation
  • rhetorical coherence bias

A conclusion can be false even if every quoted verse is accurate.

5. Overconfidence remains unless designed out

A single-translation model will still:

  • state interpretations as facts
  • omit uncertainty markers
  • collapse metaphor into literal claims

Users can verify the mistake → knowable lie.

Key takeaway (the deep point)

Knowable lies emerge from inference, not disagreement.

Removing alternative translations:

  • improves consistency
  • does not guarantee epistemic correctness

A model trained on one perfect, immutable text can still confidently assert false claims about that text.

Bottom line

SetupKnowable lies possible?Why
4 translationsYesAmbiguity + inference
4 translations, fixed versionsYesInference
1 translation onlyYesInference + scope limits

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

January 25, 2026 · 9:47 am

DDR: Christianity → Catholicism → China

Copyright © 2026 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW AgenticOS™ and Hyperonomy™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Christianity → Catholicism → China: what is well-supported, what is constrained by China’s reality, and what is interpretive / speculative.

1. Christianity (general) in digital–decentralized terms

Decentralized Digital Christianity (religion)

Well-supported

Christianity as a religion is unusually compatible with decentralization because:

  • Core doctrine is textual (Scripture)
  • Salvation is not institution-dependent in most Christian theology
  • Early Christianity spread without formal churches, via letters and networks

A decentralized digital Christianity in China would look like:

  • Scripture shared digitally
  • Prayer, belief, moral identity held privately or in micro-networks
  • No visible organizational structure

This already exists.

➡️ In China today, this is functionally tolerated so long as it remains:

  • Non-organized
  • Non-mobilizing
  • Non-institutional

Decentralized Digital Christian Church (Christianity)

Well-supported

A church — even decentralized — introduces:

  • Regular gatherings (even online)
  • Teaching authority
  • Leadership recognition
  • Community discipline

In China, this is the red line.

Once Christianity becomes organized, it becomes legible to the state — and therefore regulatable.

2. Catholicism: the special case

Catholicism is structurally different from generic Christianity.

Catholicism as a Religion

Well-supported

Catholic belief includes:

  • Creedal theology
  • Sacramental worldview
  • Apostolic continuity (theological, not just historical)

A decentralized digital Catholic religion can exist at the level of belief:

  • Private prayer
  • Digital catechesis
  • Scripture + tradition study
  • Personal identification as Catholic

➡️ This already exists quietly in China, especially digitally.

This is religion without church.

Catholicism as a Church

Here the constraints become hard.

Well-supported

Catholicism cannot fully exist without church structure, because:

  • Sacraments require ordained clergy
  • Authority flows through apostolic succession
  • Unity with Rome is doctrinal, not optional

A decentralized digital Catholic church runs into immediate contradictions:

RequirementConflict
Bishop authorityCentralized by definition
Communion with RomeForeign allegiance (PRC concern)
SacramentsPhysical + clerical
Canon lawInstitutional governance

China-specific reality (well-supported)

China recognizes only one Catholic church:

  • The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA)
  • State-supervised
  • Bishops approved (sometimes retroactively) by Rome

Rome–Beijing relations are fragile, negotiated, and asymmetric.

➡️ Any Catholic church outside CPCA is:

  • Technically illegal
  • Politically sensitive
  • Operationally risky

3. What can exist safely in China?

Now the key distinction you’re circling.

A. Decentralized Digital Catholic Religion in China

Yes — relatively safely

Characteristics

  • No membership rolls
  • No leadership claims
  • No sacramental administration
  • No coordination beyond informal networks

Think:

  • Prayer apps
  • Scripture + catechism study
  • Ethical teaching
  • Liturgical calendars (privately observed)

This is:

  • Culturally diffuse
  • Politically non-threatening
  • Hard to suppress without banning ideas

➡️ From the state’s perspective: belief without mobilization

B. Decentralized Digital Catholic Church in China

No — not safely

Even if:

  • No single leader
  • No central server
  • Peer-to-peer architecture

It still fails because:

  • A church is recognizable as a church
  • It creates loyalty, rhythm, authority, continuity

Decentralization does not equal invisibility.

4. The paradox (important)

Decentralization helps religions survive.
It does not help churches avoid power.

China is not anti-belief; it is anti-uncontrolled organization.

5. Interpretive but grounded: the only viable hybrid

If someone were intentionally designing a Catholic-adjacent digital presence for China, the only stable form is:

“Religion-first, church-later” architecture

Phase 1 — Religion

  • Digital belief formation
  • Moral teaching
  • Personal devotion
  • No sacraments
  • No clergy claims

Phase 2 — Latent church

  • Micro-communities
  • Temporarily activated gatherings
  • Fluid leadership
  • No permanent structure

Phase 3 — Physical church (only where licensed)

  • CPCA-recognized spaces
  • Sacraments administered legally
  • Clear boundary between belief and institution

This mirrors:

  • Early Christianity under Rome
  • Underground Catholic survival strategies
  • Modern digital resistance patterns

6. One-line synthesis

In China, Christianity and Catholicism can survive digitally as religions, but the moment they become churches — even decentralized ones — they cross from belief into power, and power is what the state regulates.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

January 25, 2026 · 6:00 am

DDR: Could digital Catholicism exist safely in China?

Copyright © 2026 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW AgenticOS™ and Hyperonomy™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Short answer (clean)

  • Yes, but only in a constrained, non-missionary, non-authoritative form
  • No, not as a full substitute for the Catholic Church as Rome understands it

Digital Catholicism can exist as devotional, cultural, ethical, or sacramental-adjacent practice — but not as an independent ecclesial authority or evangelizing network.

1. What the Chinese state actually evaluates (well-supported)

China does not primarily evaluate religion by theology. It evaluates it by risk vectors:

  1. Foreign authority
  2. Network effects
  3. Youth transmission
  4. Unmonitored coordination
  5. Ideological competition

Digital platforms amplify all five.

So the question is not:

“Is Catholicism allowed digitally?”

It is:

“Can Catholic digital practice avoid triggering these five alarms?”

2. What forms of digital Catholicism already exist (quietly)

Well-supported, observable patterns

  • Bible apps and prayer apps exist inside China, but:
    • Often domestically hosted
    • Sometimes censored or modified
  • Catholic content circulates on:
    • WeChat
    • Weibo
    • Short-form video platforms
  • Content is:
    • Non-political
    • Non-organizational
    • Often devotional (prayers, reflections, feast days)

➡️ Key insight:
Digital Catholicism already exists — but as content, not community governance.

3. What is relatively safe (high survivability)

A. Devotional digital Catholicism

Safest category

Examples:

  • Daily prayers
  • Scripture reflections (non-controversial)
  • Saints as moral exemplars
  • Liturgical calendar reminders

Why it works:

  • Low coordination
  • No hierarchy
  • No recruitment
  • Aligns with “moral cultivation,” which the CCP tolerates

✅ High likelihood of persistence

B. Cultural–ethical Catholicism

Moderately safe

Examples:

  • Catholic social ethics framed as:
    • Care for the poor
    • Family stability
    • Moral self-discipline
  • Historical or artistic Catholic content
  • Philosophy (Augustine, Aquinas) framed academically

Constraint:

  • Must avoid:
    • Papal authority claims
    • Natural law as superior to state law
    • Human dignity language that challenges sovereignty

✅ Possible, but tightly bounded

C. One-way digital liturgy (view-only)

Conditionally tolerated

Examples:

  • Livestreamed Masses (especially from registered churches)
  • Recorded homilies
  • Feast-day services

Limits:

  • No interactive catechesis
  • No organizing
  • No sacraments mediated digitally (confession, etc.)

⚠️ Allowed only when tied to state-registered entities

4. What becomes unsafe quickly

A. Digital authority

🚫 High risk

Examples:

  • Online bishops or priests issuing directives
  • Pastoral letters circulated digitally
  • Rome-aligned teaching without state mediation

Why unsafe:

  • Competes with Party authority
  • Enables parallel loyalty
  • Scales too easily

B. Digital evangelization

🚫 Very high risk

Examples:

  • Conversion content
  • Targeted outreach
  • Youth-focused digital catechesis

Why unsafe:

  • Growth + ideology + youth = red alert
  • Violates restrictions on minors’ religious education

C. Encrypted Catholic networks

🚫 Extremely high risk

Examples:

  • Private Telegram / Signal catechism groups
  • Coordinated underground digital parishes
  • Confession-like pastoral care via encrypted chat

Interpretation by the state:

“Unregistered organization with foreign ideological ties”

Outcome:

  • Takedowns
  • Account bans
  • Potential detentions

5. The Vatican problem (structural, not technical)

Even the best-designed digital Catholicism hits a wall here:

  • Catholicism requires:
    • Apostolic succession
    • Sacramental authority
    • Obedience to Rome
  • Digital Catholicism cannot:
    • Ordain
    • Confirm
    • Resolve authority disputes

➡️ Therefore: Digital Catholicism in China can supplement faith,
but cannot replace the Church without becoming something else.

This is not a technical limit — it’s a theological one.

6. What “safe” really means (redefinition)

In China, “safe” ≠ “free”

Safe means:

  • Low visibility
  • Low growth
  • Low coordination
  • Low foreign signaling
  • High cultural compatibility

So the viable model is not:

“Digital Church”

But:

“Digitally mediated Catholic presence”

7. A realistic design envelope (if one were attempted)

Characteristics of a survivable model

  • 📍 Hosted on Chinese platforms
  • 🧱 No standalone infrastructure
  • 🧘 Focus on interior life, not governance
  • 📖 Content > community
  • ⛔ No calls to action
  • 🧑‍🦳 Adult-only orientation
  • 🏛️ Cultural framing over ecclesial framing

What it would feel like

  • More like:
    • A digital breviary
    • A moral reflection stream
  • Less like:
    • A parish
    • A movement
    • A network

8. Bottom-line judgment

Well-supported

  • Digital Catholic content can and does exist in China
  • The state tolerates low-coordination religious material
  • Authority, growth, and youth are the red lines

Uncertain

  • Long-term survival as surveillance tech improves
  • Whether Vatican diplomacy expands digital space

Interpretive (but consistent)

  • Digital Catholicism in China is viable only if it accepts a monastic posture: inward, quiet, formative, slow

In effect: Catholicism as conscience, not as institution

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,