On 12 Mar 2012, at 05:50, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Do they really have to state that they assume existence exists?
> You mean that primary matter exists? Yes that is an hypothesis.
So your complaint is that a biologist like Richard Dawkins doesn't
start all his books with "I assume matter exists". Bruno, that's
just nuts.
Yes that would be nuts, but that is not what I am talking about.
I meant that he should assume PRIMARY matter, instead of taking it for
granted, in his book on THEOLOGY, like his "The God Delusion".
>> It would be great if I could explain exactly why there is
something rather than nothing but unfortunately I don't know how to
do that, but a atheist does not need to,
> I am not sure anybody needs that
A atheist would need that if a theist could explain why there is
something rather than nothing, I would be in a pew singing hymns
next Sunday if they could do that, but of course no God theory can
provide even a hint of a hint of a answer to that.
AUDA is an elementary counter-example. Read my paper on Plotinus.
Prerequisites: a good book in mathematical logic (Mendelson, Epstein-
Carnielly, Boolos-Burgess-Jeffrey, ...).
The "correct" theology of a machine is defined by the set of true
sentences *about* the machine. The proper theological part is given by
what is true (and might be known) but can't be justified rationally.
The nice thing with comp, is that you can still justify a part of that
truth rationally at the meta-level from the comp necessarily
hypothetical assumption of being an arithmetically sound machine (=
relatively finite digital entity).
> I have no problem with those who say that they are not interested
in such or such question.
Well, personally I feel that anybody who has not even thought about
it a little would be a bit dull, and somebody who thinks about it a
lot is probably wasting time that could be more productively spent.
Why judge people interest and passion?
A important part of genius is to know what problem to go after, it
should be profound enough to make a big increase in our
understanding but not so difficult as to be out of reach. For
example in Darwin's day there was no possibility of figuring out how
chemicals turned into life, but a real first class genius might be
able to figure out how one species can change into another, and
that's exactly where Darwin set his sights. But for Darwin's ideas
to come into play you've got to start with a reproducing entity; so
he could explain how bacteria turned into a man but not how
chemicals turned into bacteria, so Darwin explained a hell of a lot
but he didn't explain everything nor did he (or Dawkins) ever claim
to.
> Only with those who assert that it is a false problem, a crackpot
field
It's not a crackpot field but I think you would have to admit that
it does attract more that its fair share of crackpots.
That is normal given it is very fundamental. That's why fear sellers
like to appropriate them, and of course they injure the field, and the
humans, a lot, but they does not betray everything, and, especially in
front of the mind body problem, we have to be cautious not throwing
the best together with the worst.
Physics does not address the theological question, so to oppose
physics and the abrahamic theologies makes physics confused with
physicalism/materialism. It makes physics like taking metaphysically
for granted the main point of the abrahamic theologies, which mainly
take the physical reality existing as such. Of course such a belief is
widespread, but the greek platonists created science, including
theology, by taking distance with that idea. By doing so they
(re)discovered a mathematical reality which will inspire the world of
intelligible ideas.
> and this by letting believe that science has solve or dissolve the
question, when it is hardly the case.
But Dawkins has never done that, never, and being a biologist most
of his books concern how the laws of chemistry (which is already
something as he would be the first to admit) produced life,
including advanced life like you and me. And Dawkins does not claim
he has a complete explanation for even this much more limited
(although still very profound) problem. Science in general and
Dawkins in particular can't explain everything, but they can explain
a lot. Religion can explain nothing, absolutely nothing.
Science can't explain everything, but after Gödel 1931, and using
comp, science can explain why, for machine, science cannot explain the
"whole truth", nor even give it a name.
Dawkins is correct in denunicating that particular "God delusion", but
he fall in that exactly same trap by opposing science and religion.
I believe only in scientific attitude, and that is nor field
dependent. And basically it is an attitude of modesty, and of putting
clearly the cards, the hypotheses, on the table.
> The hard body problem is the question of its existence, its
nature, ontological, or epistemological, and where it comes from.
The answer to the hard body problem is 42;
Well actually it is 24, but that's another story.
but now comes the really difficult part, clearly explaining exactly
what the hard body problem is.
I just said it. Does it exist? What is his nature, is it made of
something? Where and why does it comes from? What are its relation
with qualia, etc.
> I did like a lot "the selfish gene", but was rather disappointing
by its other "philosophical book", where
The Selfish Gene was one of the best books I ever read and Dawkins
has advanced philosophy far more than anybody who lists their
occupation as "philosopher" on their tax form.
I might agree with you for a class of philosophers, but let us not
generalize too much quickly. But yes, I think some philosophers,
especially when the power separation are leaking a lot, can even have
a bad effect on science, like pseudo-theology can too.
> he [Dawkins] lacks rigor in the large, and make believe that
science give credits on his pseudo-religious opinion.
Wow, you're calling someone who hates religion religious, how novel,
I've been a atheist a long time but I never heard that putdown before!
Just to be clear, I am using this definition of atheism. "g" is for
"god exists", and B is "for believe-in".
Christians = Bg
Atheists = B~g
Agnostic ~Bg and ~B~g
That's the first reason which makes them "believer". But now, if you
replace "g" by "m" = "Primary matter exists", then Both Christians (or
only catholics? this is not yet entirely clear for me) and most
atheists are of the type "Bm".
That's a second reason to call them believer.
To practice the scientific attitude in the fundamental field, without
begging any question, it seems to me wiser and simpler to be agnostic
on both god and matter. Only consciousness here and now can be said to
exist without doubt.
~Bg and ~B~g and ~Bm and ~B~m
> fanatic atheists and fundamentalist religious people are ally in
demolishing the moderate agnostics interested in the field.
Yes but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
Er well, yes. Sure. When fanatics harass the moderates many bad things
happen usually.
At least fundamentalist religious nuts make a clear stand on how
they wish to live their life, and atheists do too, they feel that
the probability of God existing
Which God?
And that's the hard God problem. Which one? The Platonist one? the
Aristotelian one? the Chinese tao? the primary physical universe?
Arithmetical truth? Set Theoretical Truth?
Science is not an answer. Science is the only a tool. Whatever you
believe in is a religion.
To oppose science to religion is like to oppose science to biology, or
science and math. Science is the building of lantern to put light
around us, religion is the believe that there is something.
is just too low to worry about
and so plays no role in their life, but agnostics are just fence
sitting wimps who give religion FAR more respect than it deserves.
It quite depends of which one. Some are agnostics just by lack of
interest in the field, others, by fear, prefer to avoid the questions.
Others, more rare, like the question and are agnostic by lack of
information or evidences. Or they are dissatisfied with the current
definition or meta-definitions. All this equivalently about m, g and
other questions.
But scientifically we have to be agnostic, and make clear what are our
assumptions in our theoretical frame. It is far to easy to beg the
questions here.
In science we are agnostic on what there is, but we are always
believer in something not completely rationally justifiable. With
computer science we can already listen to machine looking inward and
meeting the main non justifiable truth.
And you don't need UDA to study this, just mathematical logic. AUDA is
an abstract form of UDA, by and for, machines.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
