Bruno: I am sorry to have asked that question. I meant 'religion' as assigning those 'unanswered' questions to some super-authority and 'believe' an answer assigned as if a higher authority-wisdom would have provided them, whilst they came from (definitely wise) humans of THAT age (i.e. level of epistemic readiness). Mostly with mystical painting. Then later on powers picked it up, formulated those ideas into formats according to their goals (any, according to the 'times') and waged brutal wars all the way to this day. Instead of in a - as you said - modestly scientific manner admitting our ignorance. Which does not interfere with trying to find solutions.... How about steering 'comp' in the direction of the 3rd millennium level of ideas AD instead of BC times?
Sorry, I don't know those gentlemen you mention, but it seems they want to explain the fundamentally unknown by parts (ideas) of the same fundamentally unknown . Matter? Math-cal logic? Computer science? all embedded into the age-old ways. Even the last one, unless it 'forms' out itself from its rather embryonic phase of the early development. (Digital that is). John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit : > Are we reinventing the religion? Yes. Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the scientific attitude, and then deduce testable facts. That scientific attitude has ALWAYS been in conflict, of course, with all form of scientism or religionism or whatever based on authoritative arguments. It is fair to say that Aristotelism has probably saved the observation of nature from the influence of such authoritative arguments, but it has saved only that, and I think it could perhaps be time to dare, at least, reformulate unsolved old question. Comp gives an opportunity to do that. It clearly provides the tools. As Rudy Rucker, Judson Webb, Paul Benacerraf, and others have already shown, notably, is that computer science and mathematical logic makes it possible to develop theories putting light on those questions. About the nature of "matter", Comp, then, appears to go more in the direction of Plato and Plotinus than Aristotle. Is that even astonishing? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
