ROGER: According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that 
does not come from you, it is a gift from God. 

We have nothing to do with it, 
at least that is what we Lutherans believe. 

BRUNO: If it is a gift by God, why a bible? 

ROGER: Faith helps us to believe. the Bible, particularly the Gospels, tells us 
what to believe (that Jesus saved us).

BRUNO: All religions which believe(s) that religion does not apply to machine 
will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical universe. 


BRUNO: Yes, Hume was complaining about slipping modal logic into an argument. 

OK. Note that this was before Kripke, who found a nice mathematical semantic 
for a large class of modal logics, giving them at least mathematical sense. And 
that was before it was realized, notably by Kripke, that incompleteness 
provides transparent aritthmetical interpretations of modal logics (G?el, L?, 

ROGER: There are indeed some similarities between Hume and van Quine. Hume 
was an empiricist while van Quine seems. to me at least, to have been a 
Both work from the particular to the general. Theory schmeery. 

BRUNO: Van Orman Quine pragmatism is not so well clear cut. Comp relates 
theology and theo-technology, you can eventually say yes to a doctor for 
pragmatic reason. Anyway. Technically Quine's critics on modal logic is refuted 
by incompleteness, even on the first order extension, with the quantifiers 
allowed to have variable in the scope of the box. Note that this is true Peano 
Arithmetic but not for Zermelo Frankel set theory. Quantifying in the scope of 
a set predicate is hard to define. 

ROGER: I spent 33 years at least in the metallurgical laboratory before 
so in the end, I can't help that while I enjoy and respect theory, and 
and am always fascinated by it, in the end I worship data. Pragmatism. 
I was born that way. 

BRUNO:  We makes sense of data through theory and experiences, but not always 
consciously. The brain implements many theories learned through evolution. I 
don't think we can separate data from theory so easily. Somehow a brain is by 
itself already a theory. Our bodies are divine hypotheses, somehow, assuming 
comp. We are words in a rational truncation of a quantum field, to take a low 

ROGER: Good.

BRUNO: I have no problem with pragmatism, as long as it is not used against the 
freedom of any inquiry, nor used as justified invalid reasoning, or lies and 
propaganda. Nor used as pretext to cut the funding of fundamental research, as 
I can give a pragmatic reasons to fund fundamental research in all direction. 

ROGER: "Pragmatic" used in the vernacular sense is usually another word for 
"practical".  As in: "Our reason for cutting the program was pragmatic. We 
simply couldn't afford it."
But that is not exactly what pragmatic means philosophically. Philosophically 
(see Peirce) pragmatic means that the (pragmatic, not traditional) truth of an 
issue is what results from actually carrying it out.
As the experimental result is the truth of carrying out an experimental 
protocol. It may not be true in the ordinary sense. Because by going from the 
particular to the general,
you are using synthesis, not analysis. Synthesis can provide unexpected truths, 
so very powerful. Just an experiment can give you totally unexpected results.

BRUNO:  Pragmatic OK, if honest. That is sometimes difficult with respect to 
hard question, like "what's going on?". It is normal that we develop wishful 
thinking, and if that works, as already suggested by the L? formula( in some 
very weak and formal sense to be sure), a theory has to be assumed always in 
remaining open it can be false. 

ROGER:  [Reflecting] Sorry, I was again being a bit harsh again. You are a kind 
person.  But pragmatism is as honest as a carefully planned and carried out 
scientific experiment.

Can you give me a link to the sort of output a comp program would provide ? 
Being a natural pragmatist, I learn best from examples. 

BRUNO:  By definition, all programs are "comp programs", so an example of 
output is what happens on your computer's screen right now. 
BY comp, I am a program, so another example, is this post. 


BRUNO: There is a reason why a machine looking inward become religious. 


Roger , 
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: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 
Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked 

On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 

> The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that 
> suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If 
> it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not 
> governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is 
> reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. 

I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The 
reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by 
self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. 

> What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the 
> human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics 
> and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope 
> in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists 
> when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between 
> both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. 

But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from 
their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. 
And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already 
reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between 
woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. 

Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny 
appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other 

> The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian 
> movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the 
> fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. 
> So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. 

I concur. 

> When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and 
> within new organization. 

Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the 
level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative 
arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). 

> The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by 
> makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic 
> school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over 
> the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the 
> URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But 
> also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries 
> out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a 
> greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. 

OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and 
religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs 
leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense 
for short term goal, like it makes sense to "obey" to orders in the 
military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. 

And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the 
long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection 
can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later. 
What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and 
spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of 
private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best 
tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think. 

To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the 
academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to