On 14 Nov 2009, at 17:48, John Mikes wrote: > Bruno, > > you navigate into perillous waters.
I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas on the border of the non controlable. > Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain > limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness. Yes, indeed. > You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is > your choice and it works for you. It is a theorem that is does not change the general idea. I have tried the combinators, but the advantage of numbers is that their are taught already in high school, and also, the most know Löbian machine, Peano Arithmetic, has indeed those high school beliefs has only beliefs. It is more simpler, and its chnage nothing for the comp reasoning. > It does not work for me: I am still in the undecidedness and > whatever I want to grab dissipates upon touching. We have to be in undecidedness for reason of self-consistency. > I do not state to be an atheist, for - as you correctly pointed out > - it would necessitate a 'god' to deny and I do not get to such > definition. I claim to be a "scientific" agnostic, questioning > whatever traceable to a human 'mind's' (?) understanding and its > limitations (including numbers - cf: David Bohm). > In my approach we are limited and can extend our thinking only > within our limits. I try to do my best - knowing that it is not > enough. It is *never* enough, for any honest universal machine/entity. > > The developing human 'mind' (= mental capabilities altogether) went > through stepwise enwidenment including the religious faith and your > extension into a universalized 'god' idea etc. This is why I cringe > when accepting ancient ideas - definitely in an earlier stage of our > development - to be applied to our 'later stage' (I almost wrote: > more advanced - assuming we IMPROVE). Why? I think that when we discover an error in a theory, or in case of repeated failures, we may have to backtrack. > > I climb on the shoulders of giant oldies - not to see exactly as far > as they do, but further. Sometimes progress can blind you on older simpler ideas which suddenly can get new interpretation. plotinus lacked the universal machine/ number, but was close (in its chapter on numbers). > What do I see? something unexplainable - beyond my limitations. OK. > And definitely beyond the horizon of those whose shoulders I climbed > onto. You can't know that. > What does not mean that I am smarter. I just have a vision I don't > understand. OK, but they may not understand too. Most mystics insists they don't understand. > > I enjoyed your post - thank you - and warn you: going all the way > may lead you into deep agnosticism and you may lose the grip on the > assumed 'reality' that you are holding on today. I can afford it at > my age, but you have work to do in a world that does not appreciate > in science the "I DON'T KNOW" position. I think people like David Deutsch, and many others agree that science is the "don't know" per excellence. We try to make clear some beliefs and pictures and to see the consequences. But I know some does not yet know that (that science = doubt). Kind regards, 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-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.