Hi Bruno Marchal  

Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are 
quantitative.
Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them.

Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at least,
nor dealt with by computers at least directly.

I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split.
Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/14/2012  
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: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27 
Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain 


On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: 

> Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, 
> 
> 
> ROGER: Hi meekerdb 
> 
> First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so 
> it only works with half a brain. 
> 
> 
> MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one  
> cutting the "corpus callosum" here. 
> 
> ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a  
> subjective measure. 
> Apples and oranges. 

You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features  
too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that  
purposes. 
Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. 




> 
> Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. 

Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something  
is not scientific, you make it non scientific. 



> So science 
> can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. 
> Logic has the same fatal problem. 

Only if you decide so. 




> 
> 
> BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital  
> transformations, and its 
> "dual" the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is  
> proof theory and model theory. 
> Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There  
> are many branches in 
> logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. 
> 
> ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as  
> numbers or written words. 

Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no  
syntactical or finite counterparts. 



> Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw  
> it out. 

On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic  
notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course  
those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair,  
or ignorant of the UDA. 
Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff  
are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical  
3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to  
computations. 



> 
> BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists  
> in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. 
> 
> ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values.  
> morality, salvation, forgiveness. 
> These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. 

Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific  
method. If not you would not even been arguing. 



> 
> The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual  
> oof faith and moral practice. 

OK. 


> 
> Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts,  
> quantity, numbers, physical data. 

If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual  
claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior. 
Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond  
itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology,  
protecting faith from blind faith, actually. 



> 
> BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the  
> human question, 
> nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. 
> 
> 
> Bruno 
> ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. 

No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are  
religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind-  
body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for more  
information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well. 



> As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. 

Yes, like PI = 3. 


> But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with  
> meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc. 

OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess strategy. But  
computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains already  
why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation.  
Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing discourse on  
many non material things, including knowledge, meaning, etc. 

As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of  
machine, confusing them with "nothing but" their appearances. 

Bruno 





> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 9/12/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
> so that everything could function." 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: meekerdb 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05 
> Subject: Re: victims of faith 
> 
> 
> On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: 
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>>> Hi meekerdb 
>>> 
>>> Science is science and religion is religion 
>>> and never the two shall meet. 
>> 
>> I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true 
>> religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah ' Faith, 
>> it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in 
>> conflict. 
> 
> The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the  
> Church from saying 
> heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused  
> by sin,... The 
> problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. 
> 
> Brent 
> To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous 
> as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. 
> --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni 
> 
> "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an 
> atheist deserving of punishment. 
> ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of 
> Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, 
> The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not  
> BCE. 
> 
>> The son of the founder of the Bah ' Faith said, "If 
>> religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a 
>> religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two 
>> wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with 
>> which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present 
>> day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike 
>> with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the 
>> scientific discoveries of the time. 
>> 
>> We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, 
>> ?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 
>> 
>> Jason 
>> 
> 
> --  
> 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  
> . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --  
> 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  
> . 
> 

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.

-- 
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