Lennart:
I would be reluctant to choose the "most absurd statement so far".
 
IMO an atheist is just denying 'god' (hence the ref. to 'theos').
Faith (any), however, is needed in what we call 'science' in our reductionist glossary, to believe axioms, quantities, explanations of instrumental needle-movements, words from the ancient, the wisdom taught at college, the 'applied math' one scribbles, etc.,
A (religiously?) 'agnostic' is usually meant as a believer (faithful) who has doubts and is not clear "what" to believe.
I would be in trouble to find a better word e.g. for my stance, a worldview without accepting hearsay (both religious fables and 'scientific' marvels: givens, axioms, universality of human logic, etc.) choosing rather a "scientific agnosticism" positing that we will NEVER achieve a clear knowledge with our impediments of the human mind.
 
I agree with Bruno's denial of 'fundamental sciences' (below) with a reversal: all those domains are extracted models of the totality (who knows what that may be?) in topical boundaries.  So I would call none of them 'fundamental'. I agree: they are imprecise, because all disregard (mostly) the "beyond boundary" impact as 'out of observation' noise.
 
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

To be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i ”nature”.

 


Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 5 oktober 2006 17:07
Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

 


Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :


Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in "nature" is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith).

Bruno

That is the most absurd statement so far…



Unless you are confusing atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should explain why you find this absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that the "modest scientist" should not take "nature" for granted. Of course by nature, I mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something primitive, i.e. which is at the root of everything else. This does not necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of physical theories.
And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology, theology, number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite name, they are all imprecise enough.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 10/03/06

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to