Dear John,
On 19 Feb 2011, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
let me reply in fragments - your two responses are too comprehensive
for one post for me.
So for now: T R U T H .
"I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and that
is the motor of my research."
is IMO very different from your: "Now what is a truth?..." you go on
with.
All I referred to is "a" truth (yours or mine etc., from which you
emphasized 'mine' only) and that gives a difference what I wanted
to point to.
In my worldview of only partial knowledge, in an unlimited
complexity of everything (beyond our limitations and imagination)
your plain 'truth' cannot exist, but everybody is entitled to his or
her (personal?) cut-truth to believe (in).
I would not argue against your neoneoplatonist (??) "truth". Your
father was a wise man.
Perhaps. Thanks.
I don't think there is much difference between the stance of the two
of us in this topic (if we discount your misreading on the
exclusivity of 'my truth').
I even tried to 'touch' the SHARED part of all individual solipsisms
into a common belief what many misunderstand as a communal knowledge
of the world. Beside such shared views everybody has personal
aspects - maybe not expressed all the time. The 'accepted' and
shared knowledge is the basis of our conventional sciences (math
included?).
Then Brent interjected:
"It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong)."
(with - I think - Bruno's addition:
"It is faith when you lack proof. You are confusing faith and blind
faith.")
Brent is close to my position: there is no evidence, only excerpts
of our restricted (limited) view (knowledge) - the partial topical
'model' of the totality that entered our 'solipsism' so far.
The same applies to Bruno's "proof" - it also can be drawn only
from our personal and so far acquired 'model' of the topical
knowledge we already carry.
Sure. All the rest are bets, and we are lucky when we succeed to agree
on what we disagree. A condition for genuine learning.
In view of our steadily increasing information about more and more
from the totality (from Copernicus, through Mendel to Watson-Crick,
or J.S.Bach and L.DaVinci, etc. etc.) 'old proof' is no 'evidence'
at a later stage of increased knowledge. So 'faith' seems
discredited - at least not durable.
This is not necessarily true. Blind faith is discredited. Genuine
faith may not, because it is based on your acceptation of your
ignorance. It is related with being able to letting go. This can be
observed with the way people react on hallucinogen or dissociative
psychedelic. Having no prejudice on yourself and reality you fear less
to let it go. Those who have a faith based on a trust in their
(higher?) self have no fear of any arguments or facts, they know that
their faith, although not discredited, by need to be reset or reborn
from times to times.
I 'think' this is Brent:
"But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to "reset".
(Without the 'but') yes, it is essential for the survival of formal
religions. To keep the old hearsay alive and within the 'faith' the
believers carry.
And so they go toward a wall. because the faith or the sincere
believers is a living things, and the old hearsay has to adapt or die.
But that would be less painful if we just did have the right to
question the authorities. That does not really exist in some religion,
although some have a tradition of commentaries and comments. Science
has not yet really begun, because we still don't dare to ask the
question. When you do a test, like with UDA-AUDA, you get silence or
reply with the shape "everyone know that ...". We are not yet
civilized enough to do simple modest fundamental science. We play like
if we were, but we are not. Humans does not yet listen to humans, and
they will take time to listen to machines.
And (I think) Bruno's paragraph compares some theocratic and
scientific beliefs in the spirit as I wrote in my essay. We DO
believe in tenets of conventional science.
Not sure what you mean here. If by tenets of conventional science, you
mean the scientific attitude and methology, I would say that most
scientist tries their best in their fields, but usually lost it at the
pause café and during the week-end.
Use them as proof, as evidence, base conclusions upon them,
construct instruments and measurements (comparison) showing
similarities between those details we included into our explanations
to give some understanding to phenomena we only partially glimpsed.
At our present primitive state we cannot encompass the comp[lexity
of 'them all' and the relentless change in which our world - what? -
exists? works? stagnates (as in ontology?) or just exceeds our
mental capabilities?
We are blind to the complexity. We are blind also to the simplicity.
Finally:
A BIG, religious(!) -- A M E N -- to the 2 statements:
"I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of
religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry."
Yeah, I say that.
and:
"That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry. "
Brent says that. But he is using the term 'religion' in the sense of
those who commit the perversion. I use it in the very vague sense of
what communities of entities can share about the unsharable
experiences. But then my field of expertise is machine's theology,
so ...
(Meaning of course the traditional theocratic ones).
That's why I think you, Brent and me agree, somehow.
Thanks.
You are welcome,
Bruno
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 17 Feb 2011, at 20:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear John,
Dear Bruno,
I wonder if you read my essay of 2000 "Science - Religion" upon
which Russell wrote in ire:
"Don't you dare calling my science a religion!" expressing
similar (almost) basis - not in the spirit of this list (or your
particular stance), but visualizing what I call 'conventional'
science, the figment developed over the past millennia upon
halfway (maybe less) understood and partially observed phenomena.
- I mean 'THAT' efficient and miraculous technology, what
humanity uses as of yesterday.
The only difference I can see as fundamental to your present post
is the application of the word: " T r u t h " of which you
state: 'there is'. I think: 'there is not'. There is YOUR truth
and MY truth and in our individual mini-solipsism (Colin) certain
aspects may match - giving some sort of communal belief system in
scientific terms as well, so a ('partial') truth has merits, what
many may believe. Or: believe IN.
I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe in truth, and
that is the motor of my research.
Now what is a truth? In my youth I was rather optimistic and
define it as a queen which wins all wars without any army, but
taking sometime very long detours. I asked my father what he
thought about truth, and he told me that truth is what the men
fear the most.
As a scientist, I know I can never offer the truth, but only
theories, and reasoning in those theories, and interpretations
(model) of those theories, themselves depending on other theories.
And *all* theories are conjecture, even the banal theories like
"there is a moon out there".
May be you are confusing the 'unknown truth' and the 'inner
truth' (partially known for the best or the worst), when you say
that there is no other truth that "my truth".
The real prospect of science is religious in the sense of
"religare" that is sharing truth with others as a way to link us
with others, and for that, sharing faith, be it faith in a
physical universe, faith in reason, faith in some first principle,
in number theory, in plant and/or animals, in earth, in the sun,
or in <what's its name?>, etc.
It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong).
It is faith when you lack proof. You are confusing faith and blind
faith.
Then courage makes progress possible, when we have to reset the
faith in what is beyond our theories, when we discover that 'we
were wrong'.
But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to "reset".
Here you confuse religion with the current style of religion
currently dominating on Earth. In the USSR you were forbidden to
criticize genetic as conceived by Marxist. This has lasted for many
years, and in religion this lasts one millennium and half, but it is
the same process: a "good idea" transformed into an authoritative
argument.
It is easy for atheist to condamn theology and abandon it to those
who pervert it so that it remains easy to criticize.
I find it dangerous to include funding from billionaires into
establishing more credit for the hearsay-based so called
'religions' - there is too much in the world, without it.
I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault
of religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry.
That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry.
Not religion. Religion after its abandon to political authorities. I
try to use those words in the ideal sense. We don't confuse genetic
and USSR Lyssenko genetics OK? We should do the same with theology.
It is the substitution of faith and revelation for evidence and
investigation. You write as though religion was something apart
from humans and that it is not humans who define it - or maybe you
reserve to yourself the power to define it?
I use the term 'theology' in his original sense. Not in the sense of
those who have reserve the bloody power to redefine it.
Theology is obviously the most fundamental science,
It is not obvious to me that the study of gods is a science at all.
If you decide that some study in some thing is bullshit, it will
remain bullshit. There will be no motivation for distinguishing
between theories. This has made the atheists the objective allies of
the pseudo-religion.
and we are still living in an era where it belongs to
authoritative societies. By separating theology from the other
sciences, we have tolerated an unhealthy lack of seriousness in
theology and, altogether, in science. Science itself is made into
a pseudo-theology which hides its status.
Now if Templeton might be open to scientific theology (which means
only that we search truth, but present *only* hypothetical
theories, and actually NEVER pretend to get the truth, as any
sincere scientist is or should be aware), then, why not. Is it not
about time to be a little more serious in such a fundamental
subject.
People saying that GOD does not exist will automatically impose on
you their own conception of GOD, be it matter, power, money,
politics, social security, the local guru, whatever.
And the people who say GOD does exist won't impose their conception
on you???
Sure they do. Like those who say that the primitive universe exist.
In science we say "God exist?" or "The universe exists?". Science
makes only hypothesis and reasoning, and experiment, and
interpretations ...
You must not read the world news. Is there a nation where you can
be executed for denying the existence of matter?
The USSR. And apparently belgium and france, although the execution
is less bloody and discrete. They don't want advertizing, and in a
sense it is worst. To be burn alive for your idea is a way of respect.
It not only stifles free thinking,
Free thinking is always stifled. Always. Even, if not especially
by those who pretend to defend free thinking. Free thinking is a
personal eternal endeavor, needing courage and vigilance. But you
have to believe that 2+2=4, to be free. George Orwell get that
point.
I don't think George Orwell knew much about the philosophy of
mathematics.
The point of Orwell is not a point in philo of math, but of the
human attitude with possible truth. Only truth or common sense hurts
the people using authoritative argument. Orwell's 1994 hero is
tortured for refusing to say "2+2=5".
it may give justifiction to aberrant behavior, brutality, wars,
oppression and hate, above all the overpopulation of this Earth
in the name of a "God-given-SOUL" at conception.
(Never mind the animals and the artificial fertilization
processes).
Hmm... some chimpanzee are already like that. Men, many apes and
wolves have the problem that apparently they are cabled for
following leaders blindly.
I think "blindly" is unjustly pejorative. Men, apes, and wolves
are successful as species because they cooperate in endeavors that
would individually be impossible. Such endeavors need leaders. I
any large cooperative venture some people will find that they must
follow a plan they don't completely agree with. This doesn't mean
they are blind or fools.
I am not saying that such blindness did not have some evolutionary
roles. Just that we might try to update them, but that this might be
hard due to the very long habituation/use.
It is very plausible that our deeper prejudices are inherited from
our very long history. Our limited current surface only single out
that problem, but the problem is in us, not in the last "fake god"
in fashion. It runs deeper.
With the self-turing-emulability assumption, you can even
understand that the vice is already in the ideally correct Löbian
machine. Souls fall. It is a theorem, in the comp theory
(accepting neoplatonist theology and its theoretical computer's
science interpretation through comp).
You're assured of a Templeton grant with language like that! Go
for it. I'll even help you write the application.
I appreciate very much, Brent. We could try. I don't have too much
illusions tough, because if the atheists don't like too much my
work, many religious people are not glad with it too. Today they are
both aristotelian and anti-platonists. But I do appreciate,
especially from an aristotelian ;) and who knows? Sometimes I feel
that the coming back on "serious" theology is an urgent necessity
for humanity.
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and
outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar…but we have
a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were
strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
--- Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens, which I like very much, confuses religion and
clergy. It is like criticizing an algorithm by confusing it with
its incorrect implementation. But then you have no chance to see a
"correct" implementation (which in our case just means adding
interrogation marks and putting it in the science curriculum.
Bruno
I could see a 'difference' between what people call religion vs,
what people call science in the methodology: in the former the
hearsay-provided teaching is believed in faith - while in the so
called (conventional) sciences the hearsay of (poorly- maybe mis-
understood) observences (by lit and reputable professors) is
belived at face value, sometimes re-checked occasionally by a
methodology based on instruments designed FOR such belief system
proper, applying the (re)trospectively occurring (presumable)
results for a (usually mathematical?) match, as the big
'scientific achievement' and proof(?), before including them
into a faithful belief.
Proof are always made in the frame of a theory, and theories are
*always* conjecture. I took time to understand that not all
scientists are aware of that. Some are really 'believers', which
would not be a problem except that they believe not to be
believers, but being knowers!. That's not science not religion,
that's pseudo-science or pseudo-religion, or madness.
Working in a theory is fun. And it is the only way to luckily
realize our theory is wrong, so that we lean something, which is
both fun and useful in the quest for 'truth'. To accept and
understand and appreciate our ignorance, we have to bet on truth,
whatever it is or is not, so that we can say, perhaps wrongly!, we
were wrong.
Best,
Bruno
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal
<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Thanks Brent. But I am soooo bad in selling and advertizing. I
might make an attempt because I surely agree we should bring
bridges between religion and science, although I would say we
should not build bridges, but demolish instead the artificial
wall we have build in between science and religion.
There is no difference at all between science and religion. Both,
when separated, are pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. There is
truth, and we are searching it, that's all. Just that politics
and short term goal (power) interfere with this.
Bruno
On 17 Feb 2011, at 01:02, Brent Meeker wrote:
Need funding, Bruno? "The Theology of Arithmetic" should be a
shoo-in.
Brent
-------- Original Message --------
From this week's Nature re: why some scientists are uneasy with
Templeton -
Opening paragraph:
"At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen
kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire
seems to watch over everything. John Templeton’s larger-than-life
bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized
portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed
snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices.
It seems fitting that Templeton is keeping an eye on the
foundation that
he created in 1987, and that consumed so much of his time and
energy.
With a current endowment estimated at US$2.1 billion, the
organization
continues to pursue Templeton’s goal of building bridges between
science
and religion. Each year, it doles out some $70 million in grants,
more
than $40 million of which goes to research in fields such as
cosmology,
evolutionary biology and psychology."
Brian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
.
<Faith in Science.pdf>
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-list@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-list@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-list@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-list@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-list@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-list@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.
