Sorry I 'sent' again my note already on list.
I wanted to add to it to Bruno:

googgling YOUR Plotinus brought up my discussion about it with you 4 years
ago.
I did not 'think it in' (memory!) because - as I detected now again - it has
too many (formal) religious connotations for me.
I want to keep out from religion-involved discussions as long as I can. I am
within a wide and limitless interlaced (related?) complexity of everything -
what I do not comprehend of course - and find the number-related sector a
followable aspect.
Religion (any) would throw me out of the domain of ignorance in which I feel
comfortable.
I have an old friend who is a 'private' catholic priest, another one
concentrating on Hindu and Budhist teachings, I have protestant faithfuls in
my entourage - I try to avoid topics that cut into THEIR (even)
vocabulary.of (emotional) belief systems.
I did not get much smarter from looking into Plotinus.
But nobody promised such either.
John M


On 2/9/10, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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