Le 25-févr.-06, à 12:22, uv a écrit :

> "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on February 23, 2006
>> The loebian machine knows that there are some truth which would be
>> wrong once she takes it as axiom. "comp" belongs to that type, and
>> that is why I insist that "comp" is more than just an hypothesis. It
>> needs some "act of faith".
> But if comp involves an act of faith, then surely this act of faith
> may need the sort of holistic and human properties of conventional
> religion, which you may claim to despise.

If comp (or weaker) is correct then it would be astonishing 
"conventional religion" are "very wrong", but this could depend by what 
you mean by "conventional religion". Actually it may be that the lobian 
entity (and I recall that all Platonist self-referentially correct 
entities are lobian) is both more "Christian" and "Buddhist" than 
Plotinus and the neoplatonician (the reason being that the Christians 
will emphasize humility and self-finiteness and many Buddhist school 
will emphasize Ignorance. Plotinus is not entirely clear about the 
relation between the "terrestrial" intellect and the "divine" one. Of 
course he couldn't have find the precise G G* corona which provides a 
transparent consistent interpretation of that fundamental separation 
(which then propagates on all hypostases.

(And the importance of that is that each hypostasis defines the class 
of its possible multiverses; physics should then to be expected as 
corresponding to Soul and Matter (intelligible, sensible) hypostases. 
And this is verifiable.)

> All in all, I would rather
> follow the 10 commandments than the outpourings of some
> machine. That is from my existing and present experience of many
> computer outputs and dud religions.

In religious matter I think the better way is the one which resonates 
the better with you, as far as you don't use authoritative methods for 
imposing your beliefs.
All what the lobian machine says is that you can belief comp but it is 
at your own risk and peril. But also that you can reason about its 
consequences and then some are already testable.

> Maybe that is not so in the
> future, but that is pure speculation not faith or theory.
> Perhaps Bruno could accurately define his 'act of faith' ? Maybe
> that is near the nub of it. I am sorry if he feels that he already
> has but I can't easily see that.

The practical, terrestrial act of faith consists to say "yes" to a 
surgeon which proposes you an artificial digital brain/body. It is a 
belief in a form or reincarnation.
Its theoretical counterpart, formalizable, that is translatable, in the 
language of a lobian entity, is the "no cul-de-sac" assumption, which 
by incompleteness is non trivial (it consists to add p, or Dp, or both, 
to the intellect Bp). This generates the 8 hypostases.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to