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 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.
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 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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to