On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the
platonist, and
was
almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but
reasonable
assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by
reaction to
*imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the
"theology" baby
with
the clerical bath water.
Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent
with the
idea that there is a reality which transcend us.
Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion
unless
you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
goes beyond experimental proof in scope.
I prefer to keep the term "proof" in the strong logician's sense
(formal or
informal).
I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.
You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any
evidence. We
know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^10000, but have no
experimental evidences at all for that!
But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth
are just
beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest
one is
the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by
PA. Note
that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is
equivalent
with "having a model", or having a (mathematical) reality
satisfying the
axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some
machine, that
there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.
Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
Lol.
Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"
Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp).
and that a "flux density of infinities" can flow between them.
Or is that overboard?
If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of
reifying the particles, or of interpreting the "flux densities of
infinities" in a too much materialist sense.
If you compensate with "matrix-" or "simulacron"-like illustration,
that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that
those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it
becomes "matter appearances" only from the "number's pov" as
distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth.
I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this
was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the
Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the
machine turns such argument in favor of comp.
I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong
evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of
course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least),
but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely.
Bruno
Richard
points and lines
word geometry?
Richard
Bruno
Richard
By definition it cannot be
proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like "arithmetical
truth" has to
appear for any sound machine.
Bruno
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
1/8/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote:
Consider God, a word for Mind
OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that
is
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God
but not
the
word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will
not do)
MUST
be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.
GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more
neutral
than "Universe", which is the third Aristotelian God, and which
does not
belong to what constitutes the "being" for the Platonist. Since
about
1500
years, the term "God" has acquired many christian cultural
colors, but
there
is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian
"theory".
God
has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it
can only
be a
fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities
than the
abramanic god, but with a less "person" feature. I use the term
God to
designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our
existence.
With
comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play
that
role,
and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of
Plotinus
'neoplatonism'.
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 [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 [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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [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 [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.
