Thanks, Bruno, The 'truth' was missing from my post.
there was a technical mistake: from my sentence as mailed: > Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do > not ' believe. What I > find "logically not so repugnant - one word disappeared in the mailing process. Originally I wrote: > Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do > not ' believe in T R U T H (that was in RED). - then came a new par: . What I find "logically not so repugnant - etc. etc. Maybe the red insert was not well accepted by the computer-god. * The reductionist dichotomy is semantic: I called 'science' (the reductionst) the conventional historic 'gathering of information as humanity could' and identified it earlier as a "model-view" of a boundaries-enclosed topical cut out from the totality. Reductionist science (sic) observes events WITHIN the topical boundaries and draws conclusions applied many times BEYOND them.(what I find false). Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is rfeductionistic in this sense.. I agree: "SCIENCE" should be as you identified it. John On 3/21/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 21-mars-07, à 15:48, John M a écrit : > > > BRUNO: > > > > I have never met an atheist who does not believe in primitive matter. > > Well, today even theist believe in primitive matter, with few > > exception. > > Now, if an atheist does not believe in primitive matter, he certainly > > believe in something, all right. And if he does fundamental research, > > he certainly believe in something fundamental, and then if he is a > > lobian machine, then it can be shown that that fundamental thing has > > to be unnameable and god-like, even if it is "just" a pagan notion of > > god. > > > > Bruno > > --------------------------------------------- > > I cannot offer myself as the example you missed so far, because - as I > > explained - I do not consider myself conform to MY definition of an > > atheist. > > Theists do beluieve in primitive matter, created by their God. The > > previous Pope even undersigned to the Big Bang (some version). > > * > > Being a "he" you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do > > not ' believe. What I > > find "logically not so repugnant - as either the reductionist science > > fables" nor the religious hearsay - is a 'story' and I call itmy > > "NARRATIVE" to just speak about an origination of our world and > > uncountable others in a less nausiating way. > > And yes, you may call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR > > mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. > > Not sitting as an old man oncloud. > > > > John M > > > > OK then, except that I think that you confuse "science" and "scientism > or fake science". I just don't see how "science" can be reductionist. > Science is "opening the eyes and doubting what we see". > When a scientist thinks he knows the truth (or acts like he/she was > thinking that) then he looses his scientific attitude. Be it in > biology, astronomy, theology or even in astrology, or whatever. In > science, like in conscience, public lack of doubt is akin to madness. > This is provable (indeed it is a form of Godel second incompleteness > theorem) for machines or lobian entities. > > 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 [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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
