Bruno, that was beautiful. (I get moving to read your Plotinus paper)
I just returned from some general repair in my machine (heart stents
implanted) and start to recover from the maze of the zillion drugs.
I wrote a piece on Science-Religion (2003) which I find close to your added
(single) lines here.
Except for the 'common truth' what I consider partial - cut to our
capabilities of knowing and personal - as product of one's
genetic/experiential mindset. Even the 'adjusted' (common?) truth is
personally flavored.

Have a good day

John M


On 2/2/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>
>  On 01 Feb 2010, at 12:07, w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz wrote (FOR list)
> :
>
> > 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.
> Category mistake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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 machine.
>
>
> 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 revisions.
>
>
> Bruno Marchal
>
>  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<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to