Le 12-août-05, à 20:47, Norman Samish a écrit :
You speak of "God." Could you define what you, as a logician,
Usually I try to avoid the name, especially when I propose "theology"
for naming the study of all observer-moments from all possible angles
(angles = (plural) person point of views).
As a logician, or as a mathematician, I can only adopt their axiomatic
As a "theologian" I can only give you my favorite first axiom for
"God", which is that it has no name. It is a common axiom in many
actual religion. It is made rather explicit by the Chinese Taoist for
giving just one example.
A natural question, then, is: "Is there something the lobian machine
Logicians are generally using the word "name" in an apparent restricted
way, as being not a pointer but some explicit formal description. It
happens that "truth", as a predicate applied *on* machine cannot have
such a description *for* the machine. A sound lobian machine cannot
already named its own *truth* predicate. [Tarski Theorem, in the
(And now Theaetetus defines the knower (the first person) by an
explicit link between provability and truth, and this, by above, will
entail that the knower (the first person) has no name, too.)
Of course, below, I was not using the name of God seriously, I was
alluding to some statement made by Einstein about some possible
maliciousness of the Lord (as he said from time to time).
BM: An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument
physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its
asyness comes from the fact that it does not really explained how to
the derivation. The second part is a translation of that argument in
language of the "universal machine itself". This, by the constraints
theoretical ccomputer science, makes the proof constructive, so that it
gives the complete derivation of physics from computer science. Of
God is a little malicious, apparently, and we are led to hard
purely mathematical questions. You are welcome, Bruno