On 01 Dec 2013, at 11:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Is that not intellectual dishonesty?
It is dishonesty only when an alternative religion is proposed and
presented not as a religion, but as scientific facts.
Atheists are not honest, because by denying a God or all God, they
replace it without saying by another (impersonal) God,
That's not true....
I have not found an atheist, interested in the fundamental question,
who does not believe in something transcendental, be it mathematics,
or a physical universe, etc. That's OK, but with comp, this becomes a
religious belief in the traditional theological sense. may be you are
just ignoring the theological literature.
without understanding that this is a theological theory which
assumes a theological axiom: the belief in a primitive physical
universe/matter.
I don't believe in a primitive physical universe and I don't believe
in god, I see no contradiction with that...
In what do you believe?
it's because you redefine what god means you're able to say such
things, but that is dishonest.
You are using the redefinition of "god" made by the political power
who perverted the original notion for control purpose. But even the
theologian belonging to those tradition (who perverted) the word, use
it in a sense which is quite close to the original sense.
I use it in the same sense than in entheogen: awaking the God inside
you, I use it is the sense of most people asserting that they are
believer, and who seems genuine, and never pretend their belief is
communicable.
Then using the terms "God" and "theology" can help to "correct", with
respect to comp, the existing theology, and the demarcation is rather
clear: on one par you have the religion based on authoritative
arguments, which are far away from comp, and then you have the
religion based on personal experience and secret doctrine with
negative theology (Soufi, Kabbala, Augustine, Hinduism, Buddhism,
taoism, platonism, neoplatonism, etc.). This is certainly an
oversimplification, but it illustrates that we might be machine, and
that some humans might be more self-referentially correct than others.
Bruno
Quentin
Some will call Occam razor, meaning that they extrapolate from their
dreamy (with comp) experience that a physical universe exist
primitively. But there are no evidence for that. Indeed with comp it
is far more plausible that we belong to an infinity of computations
whose existence is provable in elementary arithmetic: meaning: with
comp we might lead to disbelieve in the material creation, meaning
that comp is "atheist" with respect to the God of the atheists.
My point is that among all religions, atheism is the most dishonest
one, as they pretend to do science, and they mock the other as not
being serious. But science is agnostic and makes its assumption
explicit, and keep in mind that those are assumptions.
From the point of view of an aristotelian believer (like many
christians and basically all atheists) comp can be described as
being a super-atheism: as it might contradict both the existence of
a creator *and* the existence of a creation (physical universe). But
there is a universal dreamer (in arithmetic) and he is confronted to
a "ONE", the arithmetical truth which cannot not influence the
dreams possible and their statistics (dreams obeys laws).
It remains a big mystery: arithmetical truth, or our belief in
arithmetical truth. But this is assumed by all scientist, and comp
explain everything from it.
Samiya, in case you dont' see how all dreams are "generated" by
arithmetical truth, you can search on Google and Youtube with the
key "Mandelbrot set" which illustrates nicely how a very simple
number relation (a quite little program) can generate something
infinitely complex (and rather beautiful according to many). The
Mandelbrot set (restricted on the rational numbers) might be a
compact representation of a universal dovetailer, in which case
*you* are infinitely distributed ion its infinitely complex border.
The "god" of comp, like the God of most religion is transcendent,
and so we cannot use it as an explanation of the Origin, as it is
more complex than the origin, but it might gives the key for the
End. God is a soul attractor. It can also be a hope for possible
harmony in the chaotic complex reality. It is more like a goal, than
an explanation per se.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
