Hi Bruno Marchal 

This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to 
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is 
"ought to be" and Aristotle is "is in fact".

There is a troubling dualism between the two, that while we live in the
Kingdom of Earth, we strive for the Kingdom of Heaven
("thy Kingdom come.). 

This is unreconciliable dualism Hume pointed out between
"is" and "should be".  He said he knew of no way to go from
"is" to "should be". Hume is a great prose stylist and thinker
so ihe's worth quoting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his work, A 
Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always 
remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of 
reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning 
human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the 
usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition 
that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is 
imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or 
ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it 
should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be 
given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a 
deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do 
not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the 
readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the 
vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and 
virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by 
reason.[1]

Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any 
explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how 
exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by 
Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical 
theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is 
impossible.[2] This complete severing of "is" from "ought" has been given the 
graphic designation of Hume's Guillotine.[3]
Implications
The apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements, when combined 
with Hume's fork, renders "ought" statements of dubious validity. Hume's fork 
is the idea that all items of knowledge are either based on logic and 
definitions, or else on observation. If the is杘ught problem holds, then "ought" 
statements do not seem to be known in either of these two ways, and it would 
seem that there can be no moral knowledge. Moral skepticism and non-cognitivism 
work with such conclusions.
The is杘ught problem has been recognised as an important issue for the validity 
of secular ethics and their defense from criticism梠ften religiously inspired.[4]





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-18, 10:10:58
Subject: Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion




On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:35, Roger wrote:



IMHO

Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal logic of 
Plato, final causes. Eternal truth, 
not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No.


Whoa! You are close to Platonism. Nice (with respect to comp). 







Science  deals with the Kingdom of Earth: the contingent world of Aristotle and 
Lebniz.
Contingent facts, not eternal truth. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


I can be OK with that. We can be more precise by postulating comp, as many 
contingency become absolutely contingent. In particular the computational 
states become necessarily contingent. We have 
p-> []<>p (p -> necessary possible p): it makes the accessibility relation 
among worlds symmetrical, and something physical is something repeatable in 
principles.


For a modal logician, Kripke is a big progress on Leibniz, because Kripke 
relativizes the modalities to the 'actual world'. Leibniz always works 
implicitly in one modal logic (known as S5). S5 is the only modal logic which 
cannot be interpreted in arithmetic, at least not in the self-referential 
approach to cognition.


There are billions (even a continuum to be exact) of modal logic. Each defines 
its o<n notion of contingence and necessity. But both Aristotle, and Leibniz 
(and even G?el, arguably) single out S5. More on this later perhaps. 


Bruno







The other remarks of yours are mankind's mistaken views of both. 


----- Have received the following content ----- 
Sender: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-18, 06:26:11
Subject: Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion




On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote: 
Hi guys,

Regarding Descartes.....

There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in 
only one form,
either in science or in the Bible. 

WHOA! Talk about parochial.  I guess Roger hasn't heard of the Quran, the Tao, 
the Eightfold Way, Dianetics, Wicca, the Torah,... 

The interesting thing is that wars are fought over divine TRUTHs, be not over 
scientific knowledge.



It is the same, as you can see through history. Just that scientific knowledge 
impose itself in the shorter run than fundamental knowledge.


Science is just an attitude of modesty, religion is the belief that, not 
science, but what science tries to handle, makes sense, and it motivates 
(fundamental) research.


Of course humans, and even nature, perverts science and religion all the time 
for reason of dishonest selfish special local short term interests. That's part 
of life.


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.



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