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 science. > 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 histories. 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 searching. 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. 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=.