On 09 May 2013, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged
religion,
> ?
Which word didn't you understand?
>> but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion,
> ?
Which word didn't you understand?
I think I understood all words. It is the sentence or proposition
which makes no sense.
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?
And why should a religion be illogical? This is just by of the
Aristotelian dogma, or the need in blind faith, which is the opposite
of the mystical and rational approach.
>> please explain to me exactly why a event without a cause is
illogical. What law of logic does it violate?
> I think that you confuse false and inconsistent.
I believe I understand the distinction rather well, in one a
proposition comes into conflict with reality and in the other it
just comes into conflict with the logical system you've come up with
and so its conceivable that the problem could be with the logical
system and not with the proposition; although this is unlikely if
you trust the system.
> An event without cause, assuming "cause" means something, might
not be a problem for logic,
There is no "might" about it.
> but it is a problem for physics.
What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger
physical problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette
wheels coexist peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheel does not ask for any event without a cause.
> it is poor explanation, if explanation at all.
It is a pure act of faith to assume that everything has a explanation,
That is the act of faith of the rationalist, indeed.
I admit that is the correct default position to take whenever a
scientist encounters a new phenomenon because if you don't even look
for something you will never find it,
Very good.
but some things might have no explanation.
Why? And why bet on that?
Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that anything has a
explanation.
Or perhaps there is an explanation for that.
And before anybody tries for the 9999'th time to freak me out by
calling me religious let me remind you that "God did it" is a
explanation,
It is a fact, with the large definition of God I gave. As an
explanation it is as absurd to explain the existence of the moon by
the fact that we see the moon.
a very bad and stupid explanation but a explanation nevertheless.
Not at all. For the rational theologian, it is a mysterious fact in
need of an explanation. Again, you limit theology to what some
contingent politics have restricted by use of violence.
No explanation is vastly superior to a idiotic explanation.
Absolutely, but so let us not even mention the crackpot in the field,
and let us concentrate on the genuine problem.
In this case, beyond the mystery of our understanding of the natural
numbers---which we can "meta-explain" in mathematical logic + the meta-
assumption that we are locally consistent machines---there are no
evidence that some events lack of explanation, so let us not bet on
genuine randomness in nature prematurely.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.
