Hi John,

On 09 Feb 2010, at 23:50, John Mikes 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 wish you a nice recovery.



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.

I don't think that elementary arithmetical truth is personally flavored. I think that "17 is prime" is true for all creature in all possible multiverses.

Anyway, it is part of the theory which explains how physics has to arise from arithmetic, from a first person plural bias (indeed) common to population of universal machines.



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.


Religion or (scientific) theology comes originally from an acceptance of our ignorance. The idea that religion answers fundamental question is a contingent political perversion of science. It has nothing to do with research.





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 use theology in the sense of Plato, and I follow its "religion". "God" is the truth we are searching, and the scientific method is its main tool. But this asks for admittance of ignorance, and the human adults are programmed to hide such ignorance. We are still dinosaur with that respect, and use authoritative arguments, probably for "Darwinian" reasons.



I did not get much smarter from looking into Plotinus.
But nobody promised such either.


Looking into is not enough I 'm afraid. You have to study it, to be honest. For this you have to get a minimal amount of familiar with mathematical logic. We will have other opportunities to talk on this. The point is not showing computationalism true, but to show it testable/falsifiable.

Bruno 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 . 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 .

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=en.

Reply via email to