On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >I would be very interested if a theory of everything exists, but there >> is no reason ti think it must. >> > > > That is why we need a bit of faith in fundamental research. >
The theory either exists or it does not and in either case faith is not needed to know that fundamental research will teach us more about how the world works. > > But with comp, the question is easily settled. > With this thing you call "comp" if matter is organized in certain ways then the adjective "conscious" can be used to describe it and that's all that can be said about consciousness; however that's not all that can be said about matter; if a theory of everything exists then there is a finite amount of more stuff that can be said about matter and if there is not such a theory then there is a infinite amount of more stuff that can be said. To tell you the truth I don't even have a gut feeling about whether a theory of everything exists or not, I just don't know. >> Imagine if you and some of your friends decided to collaborate to prove > something about the real numbers, but one of you thought "real numbers" > meant a right triangle, another thought the points on a line, another > thought it meant a oblate spheroid and still another a ice cream cone. You > decide to worry about what "real numbers" means until after the proof is > finished. Do you think the resulting proof would be any good? > > > All what is needed is to agree on some basic properties for the terms of > our theory. > Yes I agree that is certainly needed, and yet I see on this very list endless debates about if people have free will or not or if God exists or not and there is not the slightest agreement about what "free will" or "God" means. People very very literally don't know what they're talking about, but whatever they're talking about they are doing so with great passion. It's no wonder the debate never goes anywhere! > you can take such definition[ of God], and then be open to critics for > some feature. We don't need to believe in their theory on God, to accept > partially some definition. [...] It is frequent to have many > definition/theories. then we compare, reason, etc. > I just don't get it. If I said "Is your name Bruno Marchal?" you wouldn't respond, as Bill Gates once did under oath during a antitrust hearing, with "That depends on what the meaning of "is" is " , instead you'd just answer the damn question. But if I said "are you a atheist?" the response is full of evasions, obscure definitions, qualifications, demands for clarification, and enough legalese and general bafflegab to make the lawyer for a crooked politician gag. I just don't get it. > I don't believe in any literal definition, of God, universe, whole, etc. > If that's what you believe, or rather what you don't believe, then why are you unable to utter the simple crystal clear declarative sentence "I am a atheist" ? Why all the gobbledegook? 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 [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.
