On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth
comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only
one.
Those are the bastards we have to fight.
That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in
such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to
question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most
rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression.
The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say
I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad
reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means
"question".
For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that
existence
is scientifically unproveable.
I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also
not scientifically provable.
Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many
theory, non scientifically provable.
That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable
"out of theory".
The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe)
and they believe that there are no other Gods.
I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word
is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a
definition of Jesus.
Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem
with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of
the Dx ="xx" trick.
But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution
or the Big
Bang.
I beg to differ on this.
So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what
kind of truth is referred to.
There is one truth. Let us search it.
In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords,
meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words,
but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot
be accurately be communicable or proveable.
The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many
paths. they should not be confused with the truth.
You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he
want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive
the plane.
Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even
without words.
But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can
propose a theory, which is only a question.
That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us,
the One can provide us individually with personal truths,
such as my identity or memory,
Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same.
which I suggest are only
true for me,
There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth
is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it.
giving another branch of the necessary truths
besides those of logic.
Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already
the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares.
Which would be the wordless truths
of Goodness and of Beauty.
Plausibly.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23
Subject: Re: truth vs reality
On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist,
> to me, the word "truth" is a stumbling block and a red herring.
> To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing
> according to their definitions.
Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense.
>
> To me, the word "real" would be a better one, and
> to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is
> real and nothing else (physical things aren't real).
This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at
least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs
relatively to that universal number/supreme monad).
> And
> there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which
> keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a "dust") of
> continually changing reals, each real being a substance
> of one part.
OK.
Bruno
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-12, 12:16:23
> Subject: Re: How mathematical truth might enter our universe
>
>
> On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> One of the questions in mathematics is where does mathematical
truth
>> come from, if it exists platonically, how does it manifest
>> physically (e.g. as the utterances of mathematicians).
>
> I could explain, but it can be long, that it is impossible to
explain
> where the natural numbers come from, or where the Fortran programs
> come from, of were the GoL comes from.
>
> Now if you assume the natural numbers, and the + and x laws, then I
> can prove the existence of the Fortran programs, and of GoL, etc.
>
> if you assume GoL, I can prove the existence of the numbers, etc.
>
> So the numbers, or anything Turing equivalent are mysterious. It is
> the least that we have to assume to get anything capable of
supporting
> a computer, or a brain.
>
> But once we assume the numbers, then we can explain why they will
> eventually develop a mathematics (and physics) much richer than the
> numbers (including many infinities).
>
> Above arithmetic, the mathematics (and physics) are just number mind
> tools to simplify their lives when the relation with other
(universal)
> numbers get too much complex, a bit like the complex Riemann Zeta
> function is a tool for making simpler the relation between the prime
> numbers and the study of their distribution.
>
>
>
>>
>> I had a thought inspired by one of Roger's posts regarding cause
and
>> effect extending outside of spacetime. I thought, there is nothing
>> preventing the goings on in this universe from having causal
>> implications outside our universe. Consider that an advanced
>> civilization might choose to simulate our universe and inspect it.
>> Then when they observe what happens in our universe the
observations
>> generate causal effects in their own universe. The same applies to
>> our universe, we might choose to observe another universe through
>> simulation, and our discoveries or observations of that other
>> universe change us. Thus, the various universes that can exist out
>> there are more interconnected than we might suppose. Our universe
>> is an open book to those universes possessing sufficient
>> computational power to simulate it. Likewise, how simple universes
>> like certain small instances of the game of life are open books to
>> us. The possibilities of gliders in the GoL has led to many
>> discussions about GoL gliders, their existence in the GoL universe
>> has led to the manifestation of physical changes in our own
universe.
>>
>> I think the entrance of mathematical truth to our own universe is
no
>> different. Mathematicians have used their minds to simulate objects
>> and structures that exist in other universes, in a sense they
>> observe them, and then those mathematicians report their
>> observations and discoveries concerning those objects, just as an
>> advanced civilization might report discoveries about our universe,
>> or we might report discoveries about the GoL universe. Thus the
>> structures and objects which exist in other universes have directly
>> changed the course of the evolution of our own.
>
> This explanation seems to assume universe(s) and observers, but with
> the CTM, we know we don't need to assume them, nor can we really use
> them to relate consciousness and matter. This should follow form the
> uda reasoning, normally. Apart from this, mathematics looks indeed
> like exploration of mathematical realities, but the physical reality
> is not one mathematical structure among others, it is a mathematical
> structure summing all the other mathematical structure, in some way,
> and in arithmetic.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> 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
> .
>
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
.
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.
