On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>> I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent statement than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's something that happens not to be true but at least its saying something, while "God is truth" is not saying anything, it's just silly wordplay.

> No, it is not.

I already know what the word "truth" means so when you say "God means truth" you aren't telling me anything of philosophical or mathematical or scientific interest, you're just giving me a synonym. But when you say "God has a beard" you're actually saying something, you're saying something about God; it happens to be something that is not true but at least its saying something. If I believed in God I would feel that I knew a little more about the being who created me and the universe, but no matter how deeply I believed I couldn't do anything with "God is truth".

God = truth makes a bridge between two fields, and thus provide information. You might as well criticize "1+1=2".

> If you are so worry about fairy tails notion of God, why are you limiting the meaning of God to such fairy tale notion.

Because that's what the word "God" means, without those fairy tail notions it would no longer be God, at least not in the English language.

I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale sense, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a book on the subject.

Everybody on this list seems to want to mutate the meaning of the word "God" into something more reasonable so you wouldn't have to be a idiot to say the words "I believe in God".

One of the reason of doing this is that the term "God", and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term after the long persecution of those who dare to think differently than a well know political power.

Well that certainly can be done, make the word "God" mean "truth" for example, but I don't see the point, we already have a perfectly good word for that, truth. But if you should succeed in this ridiculous quest then we're going to need to invent a new word to replace the old meaning of the word "God", let me suggest "Klogknee", then I'll be able to tell people I do believe in God but I don't believe in Klogknee.

God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. Read Plato for learning more on this.

> you are the one preventing theology to come back to seriousness

Come back? When was theology ever serious?

The question is more "when theology has derailled". And the answer is simple: when God's name has been used for normative terrestrial purpose, which is a blaspheme indeed, in a lot of traditions.

> some people have made the physical universe into a sort of authoritative God

Unlike God physical reality can smack you right on the head, in fact it seems to have habit of doing so, thus when physics says that bridge is not strong enough to hold your weight it would be wise to listen to what that authority is saying.

Nobody doubts physical reality here. but when you make into a God, you block the attempt to understand where it comes from, as you block the idea that it might be something emergent from something else, like arithmetical truth in the comp theory. Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality.

> this not only does not explain where it comes from but prevent progress both on the origin of the universe and on the mind-body problem.

And the God theory does not help one teeny tiny bit in explaining any of that.

It depends which one. yes, God has a beard is not helpful, but "God as truth" has already provided light in the frame of the computationalist theory. Read my paper on Plotinus for more.

> >You're saying that the Brahman is the truth and the truth is the Brahman, well OK but other than being able to say that its Brahman that 2+2=4 what have I gained from learning that?

> A foreseen of the fact that if "2+2=4" is a scientific statement, the following is not: ""1+1=2" is true". This plays a key role in the comp theory of consciousness.

Well duh! The fact that 2+2=4 plays a key role in EVERYTHING and anybody with half a brain knew that long before being told that the Brahman is truth and truth is the Brahman, this new information is of zero utility to me.

You did not read what I wrote. I wrote "2+2=4" is a scientific statement, but in the comp theory, literally, "2+2=4 is true" is NOT a scientific statement. If we are machine, God = Truth is so true that Truth also cannot be used in any scientific or public statement. of course, like God, machine can use Truth as a pointer, and not as a descripotive name. This is because they can approximate such concept in the scientific way.

> It becomes clearer and clearer for me that your avoidance of going from step 3 to step 4 might come from your religious atheistic beliefs.

Maybe but I'm not sure because I've long since forgotten what step 3 or 4 is, or even step 2.

You can access it by just one click.

All I remember is you claimed to have discovered some new type of indeterminacy that was fundamentally different from regular run of the mill indeterminacy and it never made any sense to me.

I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the 3-view on the 1-view (like in "I will feel myself in both cities"), and the 1-view on the 1-views (I will feel myself being in only one city and I can't know which one). This gives the only indeterminacy phenomenologically equivalent with the quantum one, yet explained entirely with assuming quantum physics.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to