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 <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

            >>>  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.

Dear Bruno,

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 "justify" them.

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 population.

    > 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 science.

    I agree.

    > Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the
    physical science.

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.

    > 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.


Indeed, I agree with John here! Speculation that does not need to contact our common physical reality can float off into nonsense very easily.




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