Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit :

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they even hinted at such a thing they'd be excommunicated and would no longer be catholic theologians.

Hmm... That does not happen, for it would make disappear Catholicism in Europa. But that happens for the intellectual. My favorite catholic theologians has eventually been excommunicated indeed, and got professional problems, but only for his writing, and that is a constant in the history of the catholic Church. Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most conservative position in religion? It looks like defending something stupid just to be able to say "I don't believe in it".



And a disbelief in a omniscient omnipotent being is all I mean when I say I'm a atheist.

Theologians are thus atheists.



You have no definition of the word "God"

I have no definition of "reality", "universe", "consciousness", points, lines, spaces, .... I only use semi-axiomatic definition, which is the way of theoretical science.



and so anything, science, mathematics, philosophy, standup comedy, every human activity becomes a "religion".

Indeed. All machines, corrects and "rich enough" (with respect to cognitive ability), develop mystical abilities, that is the ability to discover truth about themselves that thy cannot justify rationally. Universal (Löbian) machine are indeed theological. But this does not lake theology trivial, as the math shows that some theologians were correct (compared with comp), like Plotinus and the neoplatonists, and some are incorrect.



This is nuts, if you want to say truth say truth

Truth theory are not theologies, even if we can build relations once we accept some postulate (like comp). Mathematical truth theory is a very complex and hot field. There are few agreements, except on arithmetical truth, where the theory of Tarski is quite enough.


if you want to say unknown say unknown and leave the word "God" for the times you want to talk about a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe.

This is not the conception of God for many traditions. Why do you want to protect so much those who have completely perverse the field?





I understand will, you take actions to make some things more likely to happen and others less likely. But why does this trivial observation deserve the billions of words written about it?

Because we work on the hard problem of relating mind and matter, soul and person, afterlife and possible ultimate reality. It is the common craving of the people discussing on this list. We search a theory of everything, or just, before theorizing, a realm of everything. What do we have to posutlate minimally to expalin mind, matter and God. Note that neither mind, nor matter, nor God are primitive in comp. They are explained, if you accept some (larger, but common) sense of those words. And comp explains very well why machines tends naturally to pervert the "name" and use of God, and explain how to avoid the theological trap.






The world is full of fools but fools of that particular type are far too rare to worry about.

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

Don't be ridiculous. No word in the English language carries more baggage or has more idiotic associations than "God", if a scientist wants to be misunderstood he couldn't do better than use that word.  

Not if he works in a semi-axiomatic way.
Note also that in all my publications, I do not use the word "God". I use it only because someone use it here, and by definition, the God I talk about is the arithmetical truth when intuited but NOT NAMED by the machine. The theory work well, and if you have a better one, let me know.





Godel didn't say a machine can't prove anything, he said it can't prove everything.


I don't see why you say this. I have never said that machine can't prove anything.




Nobody except you knows what a Löbian machine is, even mighty Google doesn't know. Did Löb know?

Löb died some years ago. I have explained what are Löbian machine, which is an expression which convey the same as the longer expression "machine or theory which has sufficiently provabiloity abilities. I gave many examples, like PA, ZF, or any first order sepcification of a universal system + some induction axioms applicable to the basic term objects of their languages.



Definitions should come first or a proof is incomprehensible.

They came first.


A mathematical proof usually starts with "Let X be this and that" , and then we find some interesting principle that X has, in the same way we should first define God and then examine what properties can and can not be derived from it,

That's what I did. read the paper.



like the property of existence for example.  

Existence is not a property. It might be made into one, but it is confusing to do so, and I prefer to avoid it.


  


The advantage of my approach is that when I say I don't believe in God I know precisely what I'm talking about;

I guess it means that you don't believe in fairy tales, but as I said to Brent, european christians (be them protestant or catholic) does not believe in them either.


but when you say you do believe in God you have only the haziest idea of what you mean, I don't say this insultingly but you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

How do you know that? How could you know that?
This is just an annoying vocabulary discussion, I think.

Bruno



  John K Clark 


 

 --
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.

Reply via email to