Le 04-janv.-06, à 22:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Late James Higgo would have perhaps added that many trends in the
Buddhist traditions have much in common with Platonism and Plotinism.
Brent Meeker wrote:
omnipotent, superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and
intervenes in worldly events.
Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single
Is that your theory??
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is not a
--- Jim Heldberg, San Francisco Atheist Coordinator
The above quote from Heldberg would have made sense if, instead of
"atheism", he used a word like "anti-religion-ism". Religion should
not be equated with theism or theology. For instance Buddhism is not
theistic, but it is a religion.
I do agree with you, Brent, that theism, or theology, is not a good
word for Bruno's beliefs.
Careful, I don't remember having communicated any personal belief. I
guess you meant "my theory", which I recall is just the sound lobian
(But I don't totally agree with your definition of theism, as it is
closer to monotheism, since you included the word "single".)
Back on Bruno's beliefs, perhaps a word like spirituality would be a
step in the right direction, away from theology.
You mean "spiritualitylogy" then? I am seraching a general name for a
field which studies fundamental type of faith, hope, fear, bets, etc.
The idea is that G is machine science, and then G* should be machine
theology (which is only (meta)scientific for those willing to assume
comp (or weaker).
It is also a step away from the word "psychology". "Psychology" is
often associated with trying to figure out what is wrong with the
psyche, whereas "spirituality" opens it up to an exploration of the
I agree. "Psychology" does not address any spiritual question, except
as some form of delusions. It could work for G but applying
"psychology" to G* is akin to put G* in the machine science, and that
does lead to a contradiction.
The word religion locks into the idea of a set of beliefs about
reality, even beliefs that can't be proved, but also adds a set of
beliefs that certain ways of living, traditions and/or rituals are
required to live life properly.
The same with any "applied science". Except that science lacks
"rituals" and "holiness", but perhaps for wrong reason.
Theists and atheists alike can ascribe to a religion, as I've already
noted above (e.g. Buddhism). But I would say the word religion is
also too specific (in that it adds the ways-of-living) to refer to
Bruno's beliefs, at least at this point, if I follow him correctly.
But the comp "science" adds way of living too, like saying "yes" to a
doctor, using teleportation device, accepting having more than one
body, accepting some "ancestor cults" consisting of handling the godel
number of your parents, grandparents, etc. (at least for your
Speaking of religion and beliefs, Bruno, I recall that Confucius said
something like, "To know that we know what we know, and to know that
we don't know what we don't know: that is true knowledge."
If I am correct, interpreting Bp as "knowing p", could this be
translated into the following two propositions?
Bp -> BBp
~Bq -> B~Bq = D~q -> BD~q = Dp -> BDp (where p=~q)
I would say that these propositions take faith, which is in the realm
of spirituality. However, I would also say that we have to hold to
these propositions to stay sane, and also to do science and explore
Lao-tseu has already criticise many of Confucius' oversimplifying
Your formula "Dp -> BDp" is interesting, it means that we know what we
don't know. It it sometimes used in the semantics of computer data
bases, and then known as the closer-world assumption. Practically it is
a tool for making all data queries stopping, making the system NON
Turing universal. But, once a system is turing universal and
self-referentially correct, then we get Dp -> ~BDp (Godel
incompleteness), which contradicts your formula, and which makes
machine prone to non-stopping behavior. And this remains true when we
define knowledge from the logic G and G* through the Theaetetical
To know what we don't know, well, this is just impossible for machines
and even stronger (in provability abilities) entities.
But of course your point could be considered as a point against comp
(or some weaker or stronger thesis).