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:
Theism is the belief that the world was created by a single
omnipotent, superhuman agent who cares about human behavoir and intervenes in worldly events. 
Is that your theory?? 
Brent Meeker
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 machine theory.

(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 unknown.

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 comp-descendants).

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 the unknown.

Lao-tseu has already criticise many of Confucius' oversimplifying epistemological thesis. 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 variants. 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).



Reply via email to