On 09 Sep 2012, at 19:12, Jason Resch wrote:
Can hardly be more close to comp, where indeed physics is a branch of
machine self-reference logic.
Hinduism: "By understanding the Self, all this universe is known." —
That is the eastern Inner God, or neoplatonist third God, and the
notion of first person fits that role quite well, as I try to
illustrate in the Plotinus paper.
Yoga: "God dwells within you as you."
Islam: "He who knows himself knows his lord." — Muhammad
Confucianism: "Heaven, earth and human are of one body."
Taoists are closer to the comp truth than Confucianists, who bring
back the physicalism in the divine picture.
Hmm... The problem is that christianity has exiled or burn alive those
who look too much in the internal kingdom, and they will insist that
you confess to the local authorities. But Christianity is a human
thing, and it has not completely kill its original spiritual motivation.
Zen Buddhism: "Look within, you are the Buddha."
Christianity: "The Kingdom of God is within you."
Mathematician like to generalize definition, making 0, 1, and 2
numbers, where the initial intuition of number was "numerous".
In a similar vein, it is all normal to provide a general definition
of theology, as the search of the truth, including the irrational or
unjustifiable (non provable) one, like "I am conscious", or "I will
survive the Doctor technological reincarnation of me", or "I am
consistent", or "there is something real", or "there is a primary
physical universe", or "there is an afterlife", or "there is no
Then the math, or just logic, shows that machine's theology is closer
to Platonism, mysticism and the eastern conception of God, than the
Aristotelian physicalist one which bet that reality is wysiwig.
Since there are religions that adhere to ideas for God which I
cannot reject, the only solution is to reject atheism, and declare
what one does or does not believe in on a case by case basis. As I
believe in Platonism, it is very difficult for me to find something
I do not believe exists, in some sense, or somewhere, so where I
draw the line is on things which are self-inconsistent. For
example, am omniscient+omnipotent god, can it forget? If so is it
still omniscient, if not is it still omnipotent? It is easy to show
the inconsistency for some ideas of God, and thus reject them, but
this is less easy for other notions of God.
And the same for Matter or any metaphysical notion. All concepts
evolves when tackled scientifically. Only fundamentalists sticks on
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at