On 15 Nov 2009, at 04:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn't care what reality
> is,

Fundamental science does care on what really is. But it is admitted by  
serious inquirer that there are alternative theories.

> but science assumes that there is enough regularity in reality that
> theories about it can be tested.  The unprovable truths you refer to  
> are
> always relative to a particular set of axioms and rules of inference.

They are related to a self-referentially correct universal machine.  
Formal theories are just simple exemples of such machine.

> So unless you have some way to limit "reality" to that set of axioms  
> and
> rules of inference, the truths are not unprovable "in reality".

The interest is that such machine discover that there is a  
"transcendent reality" above what they can prove. Already without  
making observation. Observation speed-up, like self-mulitiplication  
and confrontation speed up the "process".
Reality, nor meaning is never limited by the theory or machine. On the  
contrary, tha theory or machine is the tool by which "reality" can  
makes sense to pieces of reality and glue them together in the quest  
for the truth.

> Religion = certain faith

It is just faith in a reality or in a truth. Religious text which tell  
that face has to be blind, can only be misunderstood poetical idea or  
cynical ways to manipulate people. To say to accept something with  
blind face is equivalent to say shup up and obeys me.

I am not talking on some pseudo-post blasphem human (too much human)  
terrestraial religion. I am talking of the the religion any universal  
machine, "before the fall of his soul", can infer by looking at herself.

>>> - and makes a virtue of belief beyond or even contrary to
>>> evidence. I agree with what you say about science, but I think you  
>>> are
>>> making up your own definition for religion.
>> Not really. It is the religion of the universal machine when she says
>> "yes" to the doctor, at her risk and peril.  Or it is the religion
>> (truth) she can deduce from just imagining surviving such an  
>> experience.
> That is what reminded me of the Bertrand Russell quotation - you seem
> reluctant to give up the word "religion" while discarding the idea for
> which it formerly stood: shared beliefs which were held on faith

I don't discard this. Shared beliefs hled by faith is already in  

> and
> immune to experimental investigation

I can agree with this, but it should not be misinterpreted. It is the  
place where "things can be dangerous or close to the blasphem". It is  
the part of truth which is indeed beyond science. But this is not  
(although it is many time when religion "lives" a blasphemous period  
(say) wher the priest says "shut up and obey me", in is the place the  
teacher says now you have to look in yourself and trust yourself.

To feast, to private oneself of sleep, or taking some drug seems to  
provide some helps, but joke and circumstances can help too.

> which explain human origins,
> purpose, and morals.

So I agree with your definition of religion. And the only difference  
with science is that for one aspect of the truth it as asked to you to  
close the book and the eyes and look into yourself.

The gigantic revolution is that we know now that universal machine can  
already do the trick, and it is just fabulous what they can see.

>> It is a branch of math, and it is axiomatized by the modal logics G
>> and G*, and its intensional variants.
>>>> It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to
>>>> figure a
>>>> mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that  
>>>> we
>>>> have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist,
>>>> nor
>>>> the priest.
> But some prove their picture in the sense of testing it and discarding
> or modifying it if it fails.  That's the scientist.  Others avoid
> testing their picture and cling to it in spite of its failures  Those
> are the priests.

Some scientist are bad too. It is not the problem of religion. It is  
the problem of humans sticking on wrong ideas. It is worth when the  
wrong idea are shared by coercion.

The problem is that if you confuse religion with bad or confused  
religion, you will prevent the possibility of better religion. So that  
confusion is maintained by the pseudo-religious people. Radical  
atheists are the best allies of the radical pseudo-religious. None one  
the coming back of the moderate and inquiring mind.

Religion is what extend science *by necessity*. It is indeed relative  
to any entity having self-referential abilities. But is may be shared  
by collection or organization of such machine relatively to probable  

I would say that religion (the truth) is the motor of science (the  
unending quest).

Any scientist who says that he does not religion is either a pure  
instrumentalist technician without conscience, or someone who has a  
blind faith religion and want to hide it from science or questioning.

Discarding religion, per se, result in transforming science into a  
religion, like equating proof and truth. This can lead only to  
problems.  Theories, machine, beliefs are finite attempts to figure  
the "thing". Of course you have to have some faith in what you are  

The best idea like religion and democracy, can be perverted. But by  
dismissing attempts tpward serious modest theology, we make impossible  
to cure ourself of the perverted religions. And none religion is per  
se totally perverted. Humans are complex and is each group you have  
different tendencies, some may have the potential to "change their  
mind or evolve".

Religion is what results when science discover its modesty and  
limitations. Once you give the mimimal ability of self-inductive  
inference to a theory as simple as Peano Arithmetic, she get mystical,  
discover her limitations, and being 100% correct, she is mute on the  
proper theological part, but she can explain that by using  
interrogation mark.

In a nutshell, for the logician, in AUDA: science corresponds to G,  
and religion corresponds to G*. And pure religion, what you and only  
you can find in you (and especially not accept by blind faith)  
corresponds to G* minus G. It is a testable theology, given that its  
include the machine physics.




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 

Reply via email to