Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart):
Latest research revealed that Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William
Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare.
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 4:57:17 AM
Subject: Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Ah bravo Günther, now I am depressing :(
I don't succeed in finding my Steinhart book. I don't either find the
book on the net, and I begin to doubt it is a book by the same
Steinhart. I have some doubt that "my Steinhart" has "Eric" as first
name. I remember only that the book was taking Pythagorus very
seriously, which is rare in the literature.
Once I find the information, I will let you know. Your Steinhart seems
interesting too (and open to Pythagorus), like Leslie is interesting
too, btw. Of course those people seems not to be aware of all the
progress in the field ...
Have a good day,
Le 11-janv.-09, à 16:54, Günther Greindl a écrit :
> Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers)
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I
>> did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references.
>> On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote:
>>>> My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I
>>>> specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once
>>>> assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a
>>>> of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology
>>>> Will machines go to paradise?
>>> Some related work:
>>> Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious
>>> 40 (1), 1 - 18.
>>> ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity;
>>> (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically
>>> viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They
>>> are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic
>>> pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive
>>> unity. I
>>> check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex;
>>> necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each
>>> ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for
>>> salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and
>>> pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They
>>> sophisticated contemporary pantheisms.
>>> Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and
>>> Machines 13
>>> (1), 155 - 186.
>>> ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds
>>> realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of
>>> computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds;
>>> some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds.
>>> are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the
>>> Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of
>>> supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive
>>> supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They
>>> perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They
>>> have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social
>>> Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is
>>> Best Wishes,
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at