On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:09, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Bruno, a brilliant statement.
I use the more polite word 'agnosticism' for 'ignorance'.

No problem. This conveys the main idea.

In our 'absence of knowledge' (how 'bout that?) we try hard to develop some faith in a setup explaining 'us', 'our world',

OK, but as you know, I define "us" by the "universal machines", not just the mammals.

'whatever happens' (and why not) etc. based on the ever increasing content of our 'model' we hold in our faith for the world over the millennia. Yours is based on arithmetic (numbers), mine on a "beyond model infinite complexity", Roger's on "God"(?) and Richard's on a physical view(???). All poorly developed belief systems, in spite of a technology seemingly so efficient recently. A big almost.

But some views/theories/hypothesis can fit better than others those *apparently distinct* views. Note that everybody believes in arithmetic (except sunday philosophers), this might help for sharing a scientific theory (sharing does not mean that we believe in it religiously, theories are just lamp under which we might find some key, as we cannot find them in the dark). But to progress the theories have to be enough clear so as to make precise predictions.

When you say "beyond models complexity", you point on some possible truth, not on a sharable refutable hypothesis. Note also that fater Gödel we know that arithmetic truth is provably beyond all "models" (model or theories), and note that the notion of complexity needs arithmetic to make sense.

Nobody has 'access' to the real stuff, - if there is such at all.

Note that *in* the mechanist theory/hypothesis we can "know" there is no stuff which can be related to any of our sensations, making them epinoumenon (dispensible with the usual weak form of Occam razor).
Of course we are ignorant about the possible truth of comp.
In fact if comp is correct, then we will forever be ignorant if comp is true. It means also that the day we might become used to comp (by using teleportation everyday for example), we are in danger of falling into a comp pseudo-religion.

Worldviews are individual mini-solipsisms, personally different.
Science accepts opinions (measured-explained-reasoned questionably) of honest former scientists taught in schools. Religion accepts the Bible(?) etc. sources for answers, - both upon hearsay.
Then come emotions and 'screw-up' the world.

Yes. It is the problem with important sciences and arts (like medicine), they can be stolen by the politics. Religion and science can accept any texts for inspiration, but religion and science should not base the faith on any text. In religion the use of authoritative arguments is far more damaging than in most usual fields, but it is also the most attracting source of (fake but operating) power for the bandits. This can probably be explained by the fact that Nature seems aimed only in the very short term advantages, making us believe in leader and authorities, but the apparition of scientific attitude witness the beginning of taking distance from such type of argument. Of course the path is still very long we get used to that idea.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to