# Re: Sensing the presence of God

On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/10/2013 7:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Jan 2013, at 19:37, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I sense God's presence.

That's nice, but how do you know (and more important how do we know) if you are sensing a omnipotent being who created the universe or if you are sensing a bad potato that you ate yesterday?

Or the devil imitating God to fail you. Yes.

I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the truth about it to others. And even if you are certain about it you can't be certain that you should be certain about it, because you can be 100% sure about something and still be dead wrong, in fact it's very common, just look at Muslim suicide bombers.

OK. Again this is a theorem in the comp theory. The wise remains mute (on the spiritual matter). But the machine can express some part in the conditional way, like she cannot prove "non provable (my-consistency), but she can prove "if I am consistent then non provable (my-consistency).

But it's only that *she* cannot prove her consistency. Her consistency may be provable by someone other machine - it's not 'unprovable' in an absolute sense.

Not really. The other machine will give a trivial proof, by assuming the consistency of the machine at the start, or it will assume something equivalent or stronger, but perhaps not trivially related to the consistency of the machine we talk about.

Nobody can prove the consistency of arithmetic, from less than something equivalent to that consistency. Proof of consistency are equivalent to transfinite induction on a constructive ordinal. To prove the consistency of an induction made on ordinals, you need an induction on higher ordinal. Another machine can prove a consistency, but that proof can only be convincing if we believe in the consistency of the other machine.

Bruno

Brent

Likewise, a part of the "spiritual truth" can be proved in the form "if comp then ...".

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13

--
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