Hi Stephen,
On 05 Aug 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/5/2012 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me:
On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Define "theology"
The study of something that does not exist.
Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be
defined by something which is supposed to be responsible, willingly
or not, for my existence, and which I cannot prove to exist. I
remeber having already some times ago provided this definition.
Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level,
by G* minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics and
Solovay theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~[]f) belongs to
G* minus G. Consistency is true for the machine, but it cannot
prove it. Yet the machine can guess it, hope it, find it or produce
it as true with some interrogation mark.
Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be
defined, in a first approximation, by the non provable (by the
machine) truth.
Dear Bruno,
It is hard to explain transcendence.
That is why I approximate it by p & ~Bp, or G* minus G (and
intensional variant of this like Z1* minus Z1).
> Define "God"
The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who
created the universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the
word but not the idea do,
I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception
of God. This confirms what I have already explained. Atheism is a
variant of christianism. They defend the same conception of God
than the Christians, as you do all the time.
I agree. They are anti-christians.
Yes. That are the same modulo the absolute value, so to speak.
Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general and
original sense of theology: as being, by definition, the
transcendental cause of everything.
Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks that
God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement (anti) of
such, has truly not thought through the implications of such.
For me, and comp, it is an open problem.
as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer
because I believe in gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong
nuclear force. I believe in bulldozers too.
But I have already told you that God is supposed to be responsible
for our existence; which is not the case for the bulldozer. But
gravity and physical force/matter could have been a more serious
answer, as it describe the perhaps primary physical world, and that
can obey the definition of God I gave, for a physicalist, and is
indeed again a common belief of christians and atheists. I am
agnostic, and correct computationalist are "atheists" with respect
to such material God.
Bruno! You are falling into the same trap with this verbiage!
Taking the anti-thesis of a thesis still requires that the thesis is
possibly true.
? (where did I say the contrary? I insist that if comp is true, then
it has to be possible, from the machine povs that comp is false). Like
<>t, it entails the consistency of its negation: <>t -> <>(~ <>t). If
a machine is consistent, then it is consistent that the machine is
inconsistent. If comp is true, then it is consistent that comp (and
its consequences) is (are) false.
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.
