Le 18-juil.-12, à 19:26, John Clark a écrit :

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


If doubt is not productive then it is not reasonable, if a physicist or chemist or biologist or geologist or astronomer doubts "physicalism" then there is nothing more for him to do and he might as well burn his books go home and stare at his navel or just play video games all day.

No problem. It just mean that they are not interested in foundations.




> Let g be the proposition that God exists. And let
And let "God" be anything more powerful than myself, or the mystery of the universe, or the joy in life, or a oak tree, or anything I think is important, then I agree all those Gods exists.  But if "God" is a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe then I don't think God exists.

Most catholic theologians have already abandoned the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being, since Thomas. I use "god" (singular) with whatever is the reason/cause of existence. If it is the Muslim God, or a physical universe, or arithmetic, let it be. I don't have the answer, that is why I do research. The problem is that such a God has ben used exclusively as political authoritative argument, so we can have doubt about it. That is sure. Now, in fundamental science, to assert tat God exists is often a way to say assert from authority that "my God does exist", with God being very often the physical universe.




>  you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it
That definition must be very very new indeed, I mean it must have been created in the last few seconds because I've been on this list for over half a year and I have never seen anybody do anything even close to that.

I can show you the posts. Actually I have just recall that definition today.


And I don't even demand precision, at this point I'd be happy with even a vague hint of a hint of what the hell you mean by making the "free will" noise and how it differs from plain ordinary "will" which I do understand.  

See my answer to Alberto Corona. It is the same as the usual indeterminacy based answer, but with the "indeterminacy" weakened into self-indterminacy, in the Turing sense. I have explained this many times. It might be the will. I have never insisted on the "free" qualifification, and I have often defend your point on this.



> I am using Plato's conception of God, as he handle it in the Parmenides and Timaeus, and that Hirchberger sums up by saying that Plato's notion of God is "Truth".  

You're in love with the word but not the idea so you've redefined the word "God" so radically that only a idiot would be a atheist because then he would be saying that truth does not exist.

Some people go that far.



I have a really radical idea, if you want to talk about truth why not use the word (drum roll please) "truth"?  

Because the use of the word God, there is less risk as being taken literally. The "truth" about a machine cannot be defined by that machine. As I said, God has no name, and it is better to use it only as a sort of analogy pointing on that unameable, than using a word which might be taken to much literally. What I just explain here can be derived from the discourse of the Löbian machine, by the theorem of Tarski.



If you're interested in communicating ideas (and if you weren't you wouldn't bother writing anything at all) then you must admit that  "it's true that 2+2=4" does a better job than "it's God that 2+2=4".

It is equivalent, except that God is known to be just a fuzzy pointer by a lot of religious people, and truth is confused with provability by a lot of people, including intuitisonist who vindicated that confusion for philosophical reason.


You'd have to be disingenuous or incredibly naive to write a word like "God" and not expect the reader to form associations with the greatest monument to folly the human race has ever produced.

I am not sure of that. I doubt science would exist without first a lot of legends and talk on where we come from. God is a question, not an answer. You hate the notion, or perhaps just the name, probably due to your education. I have been lucky having atheists and then agnostic parents, perhaps. the fact is that I do compare the mathematical discourse with many good old and recent text by honest theologians, like Plato (of course) but also like the catholic "Jean Trouillard".


And philosophy is more than a silly game of giving common words unusual definitions, or at least it should be.

However I realize that language is always in flux so if God now means truth we need a new word for the old meaning of God,  a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe; what word do you suggest?

A contradiction.


I have a idea, the word "truth" isn't doing anything anymore its job being taken over by "God" so "truth" could now mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe.

Platonist prefer to talk of emanation, or even emergence instead of creation. Plotinus question the idea that God is a person, and that he has will. God is what we search, not an answer. With comp, arithmetical truth can be considered as an omniscient (very relatively, for arithmetical truth "know" few things on analytical truth, but with comp it is enough) being responsible for all number's experiences.

We should do what mathematicians always do: search for principle on which we can agree, and then define God semi-axiomatically by anything satisfying the constraints. In presence of other hypotheses, like comp, we might be able to refine the notion. I already gave you my axioms for "God":

- it is responsible for our existence (like the physical universe for a physicalist, or consciousness for a mentalist/idealist)
- it is unnameable (like many traditions).



So now I can say I do believe in God but I don't believe in truth. I hope there are not too many other words you want to exchange meanings because this is getting a little complicated, it might be easier to learn Chinese.

You just seem unaware of the semi-axiomatic method. You have a too much precise conception of God, but this comes from your education, I guess.

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 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.

Reply via email to