On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that
there is anything without postulating it by faith.
No, postulating it by hypothesis.
You miss the point. It is an hypothesis when we reason on it, and it
is an act of faith when we use the hypothesis in "real life" (like
saying "yes" to a doctor, or taking a plane, etc.).
The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-
intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic.
You are too quick to equate a provisional entertainment of a
propisition with faith, from which you jump to religion.
I made clear that I use the term in a larger sense that any particular
religion, and actually I use the term as used by Plato.
This the liberal theologians move that John rightly mocks: "If you
believe anything then you believe in God because God is that thing.
No. It is more "If you believe in anything you believe in God because
God, by the definition I use, is responsible for that thing." There is
no reason to jump to "God is that thing", which would make the word
just empty.
" It's a move that made Paul Tillich famous, because he did it so
nakedly.
Here you betray that you really believe, in the pseudo-religious
sense, in Aristotle theology.
You confirm my feeling that atheists might be only *naive*
christians which are deeply unaware of their faith. You really
can't doubt that there might be any other notion of "God" than
yours, even to disbelieve in, and apparently you can't doubt that
reality might not be WYSIWYG.
And you apparently believe you can take a word that has had a fairly
fixed meaning for 1500yrs (by your reckoning)
In our country. You can use the Chinese TAO, but people would also
take that naming too much seriously.
and when someone uses it you can say they are wrong because it
really mean what Plato meant by it (although he spoke a different
language). I'm sure Plato was criticized because he didn't use it to
refer to Uranus and Gaea
I have never found such accusation, and besides, it would be normal.
Mathematicians and scientists are often criticized when they suggest
theories which does noit fit intuition or popular superstitions. That
happens all the time.
Bruno
and so distorted the "real" meaning - in fact Socrates was condemned
for corrupting youths belief in those gods.
Brent
“When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything
else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we
have to believe…. I warn people not to seek for anything beyond what
they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek for. In
the last resort, however, it is better for you to remain ignorant,
for fear that you come to know what you should not know…. Let
curiosity give place to faith, and glory to salvation. Let them at
least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know nothing
against the Rule [of faith] is to know everything.”
--- Tertullian
--
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.
