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 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to