On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> >> You absolutely insist on changing the meaning of the English word "God " >> to mean "stuff", > > > > > Where? > Oh I don't know, maybe every third post you've written in the last 5 years. > > > I think you are imagining thing. You already know that computationalism > implies that stuff does not exist at all. > And now "exist" and even "stuff" joins "God" and "theology" as words that have lost their meaning and thus are no longer words but are just ASCII sequences. > > " > God, in the original sense of the greeks and > [...] > *TO HELL WITH THE GREEKS!!!! *I said it before I'll say it again, the ancient Greeks were so ignorant they literally didn't know where the sun went at night, and yet you expect them to help us answer cutting edge scientific questions in the 21th century. It's ridiculous! >> >> >> Bullshit! If symbols don't have meaning then they are not symbols and >> you'd be justified in saying all Hilbert (or Shakespeare) did in his life >> was write squiggles on paper. > > > > > You show that you have no idea what mathematical logic is. > I know what Bullshit is I'll tell you that. And I know that you can think of mathematical logic as just a game of squiggles if you want, and the same thing can be done with language . T he sentence " C olorless green ideas sleep furiously " is consistent with all the axioms of English grammar, but it means nothing. You're trying to make a connection between mathematical logic and our physical world, in fact you claim that one created the other, and you can't do that if mathematical logic is just a silly squiggle game. > > > Please read the 30th first page of any textbook in logic, > Is that the same page you were talking about before, the page that can perform calculations without being connected to a battery? I freely admit I have not read that page, but then the scientists at INTEL haven't either. > > > or ask question. > Why isn't the author of "any textbook in logic " richer than INTEL? > > > We use symbol like "+" and "*" > > for pedagogical purpose, but in strict predicate calculs we use > conventionally Fi^n for a sequence of n-ary functional symbols, and A_i^n > for n-ary relational symbols, and we interpret them through mathematical > structures called models. > That's nice. Tell me, do logicians think "+", "*", and " Fi^n " have a meaning, or do they just think they're pretty squiggles? And if they do attach a meaning to them have logicians come to a agreement on what those meanings are? If not it would be rather difficult for one logician to communicate with another. > > In mathematical logic, "meaning" is defined mathematically, and it works > with any symboles used. > And the meaning assigned those symbols is arbitrary, but once there is a consensus on what a symbol means it's important to stick with it. Suppose you read a proof claiming to have proven the Riemann hypothesis and found a error on nearly every page, you write to the author pointing this out and he responds with "You said I made a error when I wrote 2+2=5 but I did not because it's true for extremely large values of 2". Would you suspect the author was trying to hide something? > > > When Hilbert said he could use "glass of beer" instead of "point" it meant > it literally. > He meant if language developed differently and everybody agreed that the ASCII sequence "a glass of beer" meant a point on a line then things would be fine, but if some people think it means that and others think it means a alcoholic beverage then chaos and confusion result. Of course if your ideas are confused then confusing language is a good way to hide the underlying stupidity. >> Do any of the squiggles on that paper have a meaning? > > > >What is it that you don't understand? > I don't understand if any of the squiggles on that paper have a meaning , that's why I asked. According to you mathematical logic is just a game in which one sequence of squiggles generates other sequences of squiggles, but none of the squiggles mean anything, they're just squiggles. I think you're maligning mathematical logic > >> >> >> as I said, >> >> theology has no domain. > > > > > In which theory? > In which domain? > > > Stop playing stupid. > Stop asking stupid questions. > > God means the creator, or the ultimate reason, of everything, > That certainly wasn't the case for the ancient Greeks that you love so much, for them the Gods were more like our comic book superheroes. Today being the creator or the ultimate reason of everything may be a necessary attribute for God to have but it is *NOT* sufficient ; first and foremost God needs to be a person, and a person smarter and more conscious than you or me. > > > You participate with the fundamentalist clergy > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > in making us forget a millenium of fertile theology > I've certainly forgotten it so refresh my memory, name one important discovery theology has made in the last millennium. I can't think of a thing . > >>> >> >>> "Zero gods" is a strong theological statement. >> >> > >> So everything is theological. > > > > > Almost: Then when you tell me that X is theological I have gained almost no new information and the word is almost useless. John K Clark > >"Zero gods" is a strong theological statement. So everything is theological. Almost: 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.
