Thanks Bruno, for accepting my position about atheists. You just did not add that 'this is why I don't call myself an atheist'. Theology is well thought of in your explanation, however IMO it carries too much historical baggage (garbage?) since ~500AD to "renew" peoples' thinking about the meaning of the term. * One question to the "math-teach(er)": you pressed the 'integers' as the basis of your number-world. How about if we consider from the excellent explanation I read recently on this list about 'string theory origins': to consider the "inside the circle" equivalents of the 'points' (numbers) outside the circle, - which are the integers - AS THE INTEGERS??? (and call the reciprocals 'inside the circle' as our integers?) would that change the status of the world? Encased in the circle? (That would be a definitely human-manipulated image). You could freely apply all your theories on that, too.
John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology' Le 24-août-06, à 22:46, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > ...... theology > > A much better pejorative! I can understand, but I *strongly* disagree on this. "theology" has been studied by the so called "rational mystics", which are also the "greek philosopher/scientist" (but also by Chinese and Indian logicians) during more than one millennia. It is just a sad and contingent fact that theology has been appropriated by politician since about 500 A.D. Abandoning the term "theology" is the product of a confusion between the field "theology" and the contingent christian theology. Well, apparently, thanks to St-Augustin (french writing) 2/3 of the main Christian Theology could be Plotinian, and so is closer to comp than, for example the Atheist position, and comp (I mean together with its "immaterialist" consequences) seems to be much harder to be accepted by atheists than by christians (I got many empirical confirmation of this). I agree with John Mikes: an atheist need to believe in something for not believing in it. Actually they are doubly dogmatic, in the sense they cannot doubt about the existence of "a physical-stuffy universe", and very often, atheist denies they are dogmatic (unlike typical "believer"). I try to avoid completely the term "metaphysics", mainly because I use "metamathematics" in comp, and this could be confusing. I agree with Peter, here, the two "meta" are unrelated. (Actually a case could be made that Everett made "metaphysics" in the sense of the "meta" in metamathematics: but I avoid insisting on that: the term "metaphysics" is too much emotionally charged). Now we have already developed an entire thread on this "vocabulary" problem, and I refer those interested to consult them. Other opportunity will appear probably when I will give more explanations on the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus' hypostases. See the recent "ROADMAP (SHORT)" for a preview. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 08/24/06 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
