On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 5:39:19 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2017, at 15:25, PGC wrote: > > Now it's interdisciplinary that nobody recognizes arithmetical reality to > not be axiomatizable, the next day it's a mathematicalism, on another day > it's a point in theology, on another day we have the amazing result of > fuzzy physics, then it's only a toy theology, then everybody lacks modesty, > *but > you evade the question: how does all this do and feature in peoples' lives?* > Even for scientists: they would all become magically modest and not evil, > upon realizing technical points such as that A.R. is not axiomatizable? > > > All scientist are already modest. >
I'm immune to the show, Bruno. Again you pretend that your personal preferences are a general law, when knowing full well that even in mathematics, there are people with richer, maximalist styles and preferences. Besides that, one could wonder for example if it is modest to publicly criticize the work of people that support your work, like you did with a recent paper on this list. A modest colleague would operate with more discretion and professionalism, it would seem to me. Especially when others endorse (and translate etc.) others' work, which in my old-fashioned worldview signals trust and having each others back, instead of stabbing it publicly for the sake of pushing your interpretation of the truth of that day. Here, I've seen greedy materialists be more modest and polite to each other. > It is just that the theological science are still taboo. > There is scientific activity, funding, and active debate concerning translation/interpretation of ancient Greek texts, there is activity on comparative religion, there is activity in foundations of science and mathematics, with literally hundreds of journals, courses and the appropriate classes out there. Believing that theological science is still taboo is curious unless they are all charlatans beyond hope, in which case I feel my point to be made. This seems cynical/fatalist and denies the existence of the transfinite ladder of refutation you advertised just yesterday. > The non axiomatizability of the arithmetical truth (not RA which is an > axiom system) illustrate, with God played by Arithmetical truth, that the > "antic" theology of Plotin and others admit an interpretation in > arithmetic. > > Indeed, god is "played" by arithmetical truth. Who's play is it? Who owns the stage and what laws and authority govern the mise-en-scene? Pure truth, right? Did you ask Plotinus and have his consent? Also, interdisciplinary appropriacy and the "fits well" criterium don't seem to be particularly effective selling points: my hand fits in a burning oven... does that mean it belongs there? This expresses an aesthetic preference and contributes nothing to veracity, unless those preferences are shared. That's why it's useless to approach people with "have you understood step 3 etc.?" before establishing that there is an openness to such preferences, worldviews, styles of thought and the ability to relate to them. I have a feeling that despite your advertised modesty, you'd plow through anybody with your program regardless of the persons they are and the styles and preferences they have. > > > > *Without a meaningful relation to peoples' lives, even if just on some > theological level, this discourse uses scientific environs to justify > purely personal mysticisms.* I fail to see evidence of such a relation > nor evidence that there is an end to your need to justify what the world > has misunderstood. The latter feels like a certainty, which does not fit > well with the modest approach you keep bragging about, attacking in > principle all scientists who don't listen to your sermonizing without > clearly naming or engaging them. PGC > > > > The point is technical, and of interest for people searching a theory of > everything, or the fundamental theory. The point is that if we assume a > certain hypothesis (Digital Mechanism), then any first order logical > specification of a Turing Universal theory can be used (like Robinson > Arithmetic, ...), and that a version of that idea is testable, by comparing > the universal machine observable (machine's physics) with the current > observation. > So today it's technical again, where testability is meant to appeal to more empirical tastes which is funny because nobody is defending some strong form thereof. So you're probably in touch with the guys at particle accelerators or school physics teachers etc. if you are confident in this assertion and moving the curriculum forward. And that's great. Good luck with those efforts and if you need support, then you might consider toning down the "I deserve a Nobel Prize as the last correct scientist-act but don't want to get my hands dirty with yucky dirty practicalities, which is the work for secretaries that I don't have time to contemplate" aspect of things, essentially pushing friends or folks interested in fundamental theory into such roles, which is not the modest scientific attitude to put it mildly, and approach me anytime. Not my style to bear grudges and close doors because of small differences here and there. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
