Hi Brent,

Our present discussion with Tom and others is particularly important 
for me. I am concentrating myself on the last decisions before writing 
"the english version of my thesis", probably in the form of one paper + 
one book (the difference is that the book should be an, as 
self-contained as possible, version of the paper. It is difficult 
because the intended audience is fuzzy: physicists have the right 
motivations (figure out what is reality), logicians and computer 
scientists have the right tools (diagonalizations), neoplatonist 
theologians have the right attitude, basic theory and questions, etc.

I still don't know if you have understand the full UDA reasoning, or at 
least the seven first steps, nor do I know if this would help 
concerning the "vocabulary" problem. I do think you have not yet 
understand the AUDA, as your recurrent remark on Gettier 
illustrates----we should perhaps harness this point in a deeper way at 
some point.
A contingent problem is that physicists, who are the best placed to 
understand my work, has been cooled down by the fact that someone as 
brilliant in math as Penrose has been able to be so wrong on Godel's 
theorem, and for many people the term "Godel" means "risky"!

Now, since I have defended my thesis, I have done two "major" 
discoveries (as people following the list can guess):
1) The interview of the lobian machine directly offers a purely 
arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's theory (of mind&matter).
2) The comp standard model of particles can be derived from some 
permutations group related to universal diophantine polynomial. This 
has forced me to dig far deeper in number theory, and leads, here too 
alas, toward very complex mathematical questions.

In my mind, the "1)" really helps, as far as we are open to 
neoplatonism. If not, it obviously favorizes rejection. The "2)" does 
not help at all and I don't know really what to do with that.

Le 05-déc.-06, à 20:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> I understand that you use "God" to refer to whatever is fundamental.

That is the idea, but actually I never use the term "God", except for 
going quick in some answer to post which use the term. The "God" I 
refer to is closer to Plotinus' ONE or to the Chinese TAO, the main 
axiom is that it is the biggest unconceivable reality with the property 
that you cannot give a name to it, or if you do, you get a 
multiplication of approximations which can hide the very idea (but 
which can be rich and creative though when distinguished from It).
The arithmetical interpretation of the ONE for the "theology" of a 
lobian machine PA is arithmetical truth. By Tarski theorem it is 
unameable by PA, for example.

> And that may well be consistent with the way Plato used it.

Hard question of course, but a case can be made that it would have been 
accepted by the most pythagoreans among the neoplatonist.

> But even among Plato's contemporary's it was probably heard as 
> referring to the Olympians.  And now, a couple of millenia later, 
> "theos", "theism", and "theology" have come to refer to a single 
> personal God.

The neoplatonist have introduced it, but Plotinus ascribes it to the 
Parmenides of Plato. The Timaeus and other text by Plato and even 
Aristotle are going in that direction. Note that the neoplatonist are 
rationalist, and their use of words is very near the modern axiomatic 
like the one used in math. In some late neoplatonist works "Gods" can 
be translated by the concept of concept, property, or even set. But 
Plotinus endows monotheism/monism, as I think comp, by its unameable 
platonism, does too.

> Since the time of Plato other terms have been introduced to 
> distinguish other "fundamentals", deism, pantheism, naturalism.

Deism, pantheism, naturalism are all "theological" position. This is 
perhaps why I need the term "theology", in an admittedly larger sense 
than the current sense. The UD reasoning shows that the belief in 
naturalism is a theological position. It need faith in something called 
"Nature", etc. I really consider scientific theology as the scientific 
approach to what science cannot prove, but still infer correctly. Of 
course I would less dare to say this without knowing about the [] and 
[]* distinction in the arithmetical hypostases (G*/G, Z1*/Z1, X1*/X1, 

>> It is an entirely contingent and sad fact that theology has been more 
>> or
>> less stolen by the temporal authoritative power of the Roman, and that
>> still today many people forget that theology has been and can still 
>> be a
>> science, ie something than can be driven by the modesty attitude.
> Would a study of the character of leprechauns be science if were 
> driven by a modesty attitude?

Yes. Even to conclude perhaps that there is no evidence known for 
affirming that there are leprechauns today.  A good example is the work 
of Suzanne Balckmore on parapsychology (In search of the light) where 
she demolishes one century of parapsychological evidence in London. In 
London, her colleagues were as serious as Blackmore by letting her 
defend her thesis, and by refining their approach. The scientific 
attitude has nothing to do with the chosen subject. A magician can be 
more scientific than a astrophysician. We must never judge a work from 
its domain.

>  The problem I have with your use of "theology" is that anyone hears 
> it, without having heard your explanation, will almost certainly 
> misunderstand it.

OK, but the same problem occur with the enunciation of the results.  
With or without the use of the term "theology" I put in doubt about 
1500 years of "naive materialism" (no more so than QM though). It 
clarifies to admit this explicitly. My diplomatic versions of my thesis 
of the year 1970, and 1980 did not help, apparently.

> You are of course free to use whatever word to mean whatever you want 
> - but that does not constrain me from using it in it's currently 
> accepted sense.

At least in this list we have to be sure we agree on the meaning of the 
terms, at least with respect to a thread!
(Of course here we are "meta-discussing" the use of a word).

> And in that sense I stand by my above statement.  Can you cite a 
> current theologian who does not hold that God (whatever His nature) 
> provides the basis of all meaning?

Exactly like "Nature" for a naturalist provides the basis of all 
meaning for him/her. Exactly like "Prime Matter" provides all meaning 
for a materialist. Exactly like "personal God" provides all meaning for 
You just give a good (in the type very large) definition of God. It is 
what provides the basis of all meaning. OK.
Then the ONE of plotinus, and arithmetical truth for PA, does provides 
the meaning indeed, for Plotinus, and for PA respectively.

> I am an atheist - I don't believe the "theos" of Chrisitianity (or 
> Islam, or Judaism) exists.  Failing to believe in an entity whose 
> defining characteristics are inconsistent with common observation is 
> hardly dogmatic.

Of course. And if by God you mean a white male sitting on a cloud, then 
I am as atheist as you. Nor do I believe that the bread is literaly the 
Christ chair. I don't believe either in Santa Klaus.
Now, in Europa, I have never met a catholic really believing that God 
was literally bread or even literally male, etc. It is just traditional 
legends used to make up a community. Most catholic are, during the 
week, even more atheist than self-called atheist. The sunday they 
follow family traditions.
But what makes me nervous with both catholic and atheist is when they 
assert that the  existence of Nature (what is that? I am not talking 
about nature, but Nature) is a scientific fact. This is scientism, fake 
science, fake theology, fake certainty.

>> Now all tradition have had good theologians at all time, even if
>> sometimes some are obliged to talk in coded way just for not finishing
>> on the fire.
>> To refuse the use of the original word "theology" is just a way to
>> defend (purposefully or not) 1500 years of institutionalized 
>> charlatanry.
> No, it is a way to communicate clearly in current standard English.  
> To use it in a sense that has not been common for 1500yrs is talking 
> in a coded way...

Expert always talk in some coded way. Many current books, if only all 
those on Plotinus or neoplatonism, or on eastern religions use the term 
theology in the larger sense, and as I told you, even catholic does 
that. My favorite books on Proclus (another famous neoplatonist after 
plotinus) are book by catholics (Jean Trouillard, ...). I like very 
much the jesuit Paul Valadier.  It is a fact that as bad the catholic 
have been in the past, they have been able to convey (well mainly 
thanks to the jewish and arabic neoplatonists who remind them the 
point) the neoplatonic theories (a bit transformed). And the math 
associated with it!

> but I don't know to what purpose since the Enlightenment has 
> eliminated the burning of heretics, at least in Belgium.

(no comment)
Enlightenment was 1/2 Enlightenment. The *practice* of eliminative 
materialism eliminates persons (cf Europa).

> I have no doubt you are correct about Plato's use of the word.  But 
> words mean what people think they mean.

In mundane conversation only. In scientific discussion words should 
have no importance at all, except at the start by pointing on something 
sufficiently precise to be wrong so that the beginners can begin to 
correct its interpretations and develop his/her doubting abilities, and 
multiply the theories and their possible interpretations.

I have already asked for another word for "theology" in the list, but 
none of the propositions made did make sense as those who did propose 
them generally have agree. Brent if you have an idea ?  I am aware that 
on a subject as hot as the fundamental questions we should be careful 
with the wording, but imo it is even more important to be careful on 
clarity. I'm not sure, and I'm a bit stuck on that point for the 



 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