On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
If I ever doubt that there is a God,
the regularity of Newton's physics or
the microscopic structure of a snowflake
dispels such doubt.
These show design.
Design cannot be made randomly.
So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature.
I call that God.
That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates
that there must be some superintelligence at work.
OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence
innate to
arithmetic.
Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can
define:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y
It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is
basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the
iteration,
starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge.
If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see
intelligent
design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in
math and
in arithmetic.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
9/11/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers
Roger,
I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than
atheist.
A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and
universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on
this, but
his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious
believer in
a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps.
To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means
"I
believe in x", and if g means (god exists)
A believer is characterized by Bg
An atheist by B ~g
An agnostic by ~Bg & ~B~g
But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with
respect
of matter, etc.
Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for
granted
other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which
is
irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which
is just
another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly.
I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by
making clear
the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg
than to Bm.
But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a
tiny part
of it.
Bruno
On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote:
If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you
can't, you
are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God
exists. You
haven't a leg to stand on.
A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist,
the wise
man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot
orbiting the
planet Uranus is silly, and so is God.
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 everything-
[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.
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-
[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.
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-
[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.
