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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.