On 28 Feb 2017, at 23:59, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrot
> 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator
and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the
supreme being.
2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a
moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine
But maybe you don't like Google, let's see how the Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines the English word "God":
1: the supreme or ultimate reality: the Being perfect in power,
wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the
universe : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as
eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
> Very good definition.
I agree.
> Then with the computationalist hypothesis, this role is well
played by the notion of "arithmetical truth",
No it is not. Arithmetical truth is not a being (superhuman or
otherwise),
Not a being?
arithmetical truth is not wise,
How do you know that?
arithmetical truth
is not the source of all moral authority,
That is not part of the Merriam-Webster definition, and, anyway, how
could you know this? If you are a digitalizable correct machine, you
don't know what Arithmetical truth is capable of. You cannot define it
without postulating something bigger.
arithmetical truth
is not good (or bad),
Maybe. Maybe not. You seem to have superpower and superknowledge.
arithmetical truth is not a spirit,
Depends what you mean by spirit. It is certainly not a material thing.
and above all arithmetical truth is not a mind.
It is close to modus ponens though. So it is a theory, even if not a
computable theory. So it is not a computable mind, but not a mind? How
could you know that.
Oh and anyone who thinks arithmetical truth is deserving of
worship is just a bit nuts.
I'm personally OK with this. I think all god hates worshipping,
although I can't be sure.
But again, that is not part of the Merriam-Webster definition you gave.
> All notions can be made mathematically precise in term of set
of numbers.
By "notions" I presume you mean physical notions,
No, I mean *all* notions. Like God/Truth, provabaility,
knowledgeability, observability, etc.
because otherwise all you'd be saying in the above is numbers need
numbers.
Some set of numbers (like provability) can described by one number
(and thus by an infinity of numbers too).
Some set of numbers cannot (like God/Truth, knowledgeability, etc.)
And it works both ways, numbers can be made physically precise in
terms of physics; for example the meaning of the number 2 can be
made precise by illustrating it with the rock hear and that other
rock over there. You have no evidence that mathematics is more
fundamental than physics. None,
I have better: a proof that if we are machine, then physics is a
modality on the arithmetical truth. It is the sigma_1 part of the
arithmetical truth seen from a first person point of view, and that
has been proved, and even verified until now. The empiric physics does
verify the laws of the machine/numbers physics.
> God is the thing by which all other things proceed.
That may be a necessary attribute for God to have but it
is not sufficient.
The ultimate reality ... from the points of view of numbers/machine.
What is indispensable is that anything that deserves the label
"God" must be a intelligent conscious omniscient omnipotent BEING
Then all intellectual christians have stopped to believe in God after
St-Thomas, who explained that omniscient and omnipotent are
contradictory when taken together.
And the notion of "being" is a very complex one. In the sense of the
neoplatonist theologian, God is NOT a being, for reason similar to the
fact that "all numbers" is not a number, or that in Cantor set theory
(or in VBG, or ZF set theories) the collection of all sets is not a
set. God is responsible for all beings, but not for itself.
who created the universe; and I'm sorry to say the
multiplication table, useful as it is, just doesn't fit the bill.
The theorem is that if computationalism is correct, addition
+multiplication does fit the bill. It has too, and it works indeed.
> I don't remember any people in this list defining God has a
blob,
Hmm, I'm pretty sure somebody on the list did, I 'll see if I can
find a example of somebody equating God with a vague amorphous non-
specific non-person.
> God is the Reality we hope exists.
Wow, that didn't take long!
Yes, the ultimate reality, when we are aware that it might not be the
physical reality. You can define God by the fundamental reality for
people who lost the faith in physicalism/naturalism/materialism. If
mechanism is wrong, then God could be the physical reality (hoping it
exists), but with mechanism, we must abandon that hope: it is not the
physical reality, as this one appears to be a first person plural
perspective/modality on the arithmetical reality.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
