On 08 Mar 2017, at 00:43, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> You missed my explanation on "axiomatics". Hilbert took some
times to explain it in lay terms. You might remember him telling
that his geometry would not have its content change in case you
change the vocabulary, like calling a point "a glass of beer" ...
If Hilbert had insisted on equating the concept of a glass of beer
with the English word "point", as you insist on equating the concept
of stuff with the English word "God", then one would be justified in
suspecting Hilbert was trying to hide sloppy thinking with bafflegab.
Not at all. His point was that a valid reasoning is independent of the
word used.
>> Can you name one short word used in everyday common speech
that means something completely different if not downright
contradictory when used in a scientific context? I can't.
> the word "theory" and "model" are used already in opposite
sense by logicians and physicists.
What are you talking about? Everyday people, logicians and
physicists all agree that "theory" means a set of ideas intended to
explain something, and a "model" of a object is a systematic
description and a model of a phenomenon is a artificial construct
that produces that phenomenon or a approximation of it.
Not at all. In logic a theory is a set of sentences together with a
set of inference rule, and a model is a semantic, that is a
mathematical structure with a notion of satisfaction. I suggest you
study the book by Mendelson. It is very good.
> Well, I see you have not understand the notion of axiomatics.
I understand that if Euclid hadn't bother to explain exactly what
the words "point" and "line" mean his axioms would be meaningless.
Euclid did not get the notion of axiomatic. It came much later.
Euclid's axioatic still relies on some intuition, and is not an
axiomatic in the modern sense.
Philosophers waste time arguing if man has free will and forget to
even ask what the hell "free will" is supposed to mean. And
theologians squabble among themselves if God exists before they even
agree what the word "God" means. This is just dumb.
No, the theology of the greeks was already pre-axiomatic. The lack of
seriousness only appeared when theology was abandoned by the
researchers to the politics, where it is still belongs today.
>> But of course theology is not science, it's not much of
anything.
> You can approach *any* domain with the scientific method or
attitude.
Yes but theology has no domain.
Theology has the gods as domain. The statement that there are no god
is a statement in the filed of theology, and I guess it is your
theology (assuming that a god needs to be a person). But you have
shown some belief in some impersonal god, like primary matter, it
seems to me. "Zero gods" is a strong theological statement.
Theology has no field of study, there is no there there.
How do you know that? It is just your belief, I think.
Your own decision to freeze your brain belong to applied
theotechnology, which is part of some theology.
> To make theology into a non-science, people have used terror
and torture,
You don't need terror or torture or anything
else to turn theology into a non-science, it got there all on its
own.
All self-referentially correct universal machine which believe in
enough induction axioms (Gödel-Löbian machines) has a theology, in
the sense of the set of true, guessable, propositions that they cannot
justify rationally.
That correct-machine's theology is arguable very close to the theories
developed by Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, and the
neoplatonists. It is plausibly not a coincidence, as it could just
mean that they introspected themselves sufficiently correctly. I am
wring a paper on this, actually, but you can already read my paper on
Plotinus (on my url front page). If interested, which I am not quite
sure.
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.
