On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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], [rclo...@verizon.net]
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 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- l...@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.

Reply via email to