On 9/14/2012 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2012, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
>>> makes a bridge between two fields,
>> What two fields?
> The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy,
metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology.
Translation from the original bafflegab: The truth is important.
And already behave like the notion of God, or what is the more common
about it in many traditions.
A have to side a bit with John here as the "truthfulness" of a
concept is different from the "meaningfulness". There is a context
requirement. For the former case of Truth it is "in all worlds" and for
the latter it is "in all accessible worlds".
And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing
intelligent to say because it has not discovered any facts.
Theology is a science.
Not so much. It must make contact with physical falsifiability in
some sense of an accessible world, but not independent of that
conditional. Theology is meta-physics, literally, "before physics", as
its considerations are such that all else, including physics, supervenes
upon its truth. We can only reason a posteriori for theologies to
Aristotle hypothesis of the existence of a primary universe has been
refuted, so we can progress in it. The physical science is a product
of a theology.
This is the key ideas where we have a disagreement. Aristotle was
just being consistent with the basic and fundamental requirement that
the physical world acts (or even *is*) the pattern of invariances
between *many* 1p points of view and thus acts as a medium of
information exchange. If you remove the stipulation of such a "pattern
of invariances betwen many" then the ability to communicate vanishes.
> Plato's questions are at the origin of science.
But Plato lived 2500 years ago and we are no longer at the origin of
science, it's time to move on.
Not at all. Theology has been stolen by politics, 1500 years ago, we
have to backtrack if we want to be rational on that issue.
I agree. Orwell's book 1984 illustrates this fact very well; if one
can control the language and ideas of a population (and hence its
theology) then you can control (to some degree) the thoughts of the
> It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't
want to get informed.
I didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy
than he did, a lot more.
You know a lot of things, but "knowing" is not a valid argument in
> Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the
There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused because I
have said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who
ever lived. Even his reputation as a great logician is overstated, he
used some very intricate pure logic and concluded with certainty that
women MUST have fewer teeth than men. They don't. Aristotle had a
wife, he could have counted her teeth at any time but never bothered
to because like most philosophers he already knew the truth, or
thought he did.
Aristotle is one of the first very big scientists. To be wrong is the
natural fate of all serious scientists.
"If one is unwilling to be wrong, then one cannot be correct."
He was wrong not just on physics, he was wrong on theology (at least
with respect to comp)..
He did not understand the concept of universality and thus didn't
know about 1-indeterminism. I am sure that if we could go back and talk
to him he could be pursuaded to understand and agree somewhat with us,
but we have to also consider that the "reality" that he "knew" was
different from ours today. Beware of chronocentrism!
But physics is allowed in academy, so we can correct his physics.
"Let no one that does not understand geometry enter here!"
Unfortunately his theology is not allowed in academy, so if you say
that it is incorrect you are mocked in the academy, and ignored, of
course, from the churches. Result: we can't progress.
Academy is always in danger of becoming merely a bastion for
orthodoxy and thus a blinkering of the genuine search for "Truth".
Again atheism goes hand in hand with the fundamentalist christians and
muslims. They both defend, in their own ways, the idea that Aristotle
theology has to remain unchanged.
I don't buy your religion, John.
And I do not either. I see all belief systems as having some kernel
of Truth that can be informative in our Quest.
Indeed, I agree with John here! Speculation that does not need to
contact our common physical reality can float off into nonsense very easily.
> I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive
physical reality, still less a paper showing how to test such idea.
I have no idea what you mean
We understand that because you have stopped the thinking at step 3.
but I will say this, if you have never seen a physics paper even
attempt to do something then its probably not very important because
they've attempted some pretty wacky things.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at