Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem with both groups is that both have a tendency to forget
> that both Science and Religion are constructs
They are not. Religion is a construct, science is a method.
Human religion is a construct of humans.
Human science is a construct of humans.
Machine religion is a construct of machines.
Machine science is a construct of machines.
Science concerns the communicable part of the common truth.
Religion concerns the non communicable part of the common truth.
Both are driven by truth, and both are perverted by any one (or
many) pretending to *know* it.
One has to take Bruno's pronouncements on religion with a grain of salt
since he assumes an esoteric definition of religion such that rather
important phrases, such as, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion" and the writings of most of those who have
studied religion incomprehensible:
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural
piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides
to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but
religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an
absolute monarchy in the minds of men."
--- Francis Bacon
"The truths of religion are never so well understood
as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
--- Voltaire, 1764
"The religions were believed "by the people, to be all equally
true, by the philosophers, to be all equally false, and by the
magistrates, to be all equally useful"
--- Edward Gibbon
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral
principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this
day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one
--- Thomas Jefferson
I doubt that Scott Atran, David Sloan Wilson, or Loyal Rue would
recognize Bruno's definition. Discounting mystics and mystical
theologians, the other 99.9% of the world takes religion to be not only
communicable, but to have been communicated by revelatory books and
visions which are not to be questioned.
We are all divine *hypotheses*, and nobody can know the last
word of <what's his name?>.
Concerning the ideal case of the self-referentially correct
machine, in the Gödel sense of self-reference, science obeys, at the
propositional level, to the modal logic G, and religion to the modal
logic G*, as described in Solovay 1976 paper, and exploited in my
publications and texts. The proper part of correct machine theology is
described by G* minus G, and can be roughly sketched by truth (in the
sense of Tarski) minus provability (in the sense of Gödel).
Most of the sentences in this post are of the type G* minus G,
and should NOT be communicated, unless the assumption of mechanism is
made explicit. So, most of this belong to the type true *about* any
correct universal machine, but non provable *by* any correct universal
I can provide technical details on the everything-list if you
are interested. Or you can read my Plotinus paper, easily accessible
from my url. It shows how the 'physical reality' fits in the
number/computer science theoretical panorama.
Religion can be perverted, and in our theorizing we should
distinguish religion from any of perverted religions. Basically
science and religion allows infinite set of comments and revisions,
and perverted sciences and perverted religions disallows comments and
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
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=en.