2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > >> >> On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:37, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>> I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or >>>>>>>> Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, >>>>>>>> Anansi, >>>>>>>> Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, >>>>>>>> Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, >>>>>>>> Balder, >>>>>>>> Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, >>>>>>>> Brigit, >>>>>>>> Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, >>>>>>>> Chemosh, Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), >>>>>>>> Davlin, >>>>>>>> Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, >>>>>>>> Epona, >>>>>>>> Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, >>>>>>>> Gaia, >>>>>>>> Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, >>>>>>>> Guanyin, >>>>>>>> Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate), Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), >>>>>>>> Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod, Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, >>>>>>>> Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu, Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, >>>>>>>> Ixtab, Izanaki, Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, >>>>>>>> Kagutsuchi, Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, >>>>>>>> Kuan-yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna, >>>>>>>> Magna >>>>>>>> Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir, Min, Minerva, >>>>>>>> Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu, Nanna, Nanna (Norse), >>>>>>>> Nanse, >>>>>>>> Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, >>>>>>>> Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut, Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, >>>>>>>> Osiris, Ostara, Pan, Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, >>>>>>>> Pilumnus, >>>>>>>> Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, >>>>>>>> Shiva, >>>>>>>> Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-Wang-Mu, >>>>>>>> Sin, >>>>>>>> Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, >>>>>>>> Thor, >>>>>>>> Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, >>>>>>>> Utu, >>>>>>>> Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi >>>>>>>> Wang-mu, >>>>>>>> Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which means it is up to you to prove that none of those Gods can >>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just because I, or someone else, can conceive of them? Is that how >>>>>> you accept the burden of proof - you must either believe in whatever >>>>>> anyone >>>>>> conceives of or else provide a disproof? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, you are the one saying that no Gods exist, >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I said I see no reason to believe in them. >>>> >>> >>> That makes you agnostic, not atheist. I recall you that agnostic = ~[]g >>> (& ~[]~g). Atheist = []~g. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You said that being able to conceive of gods makes it hard to >>>> disbelieve in God. >>>> >>> >>> Once you accept that we are ignorant on the origin of the physical >>> universe, you can be open to different sort of explanation. "God" points on >>> an explanation is not physical, but it does not mean it takes some Fairy >>> tale into account. The God of comp is the God of the Parmenides, which is >>> the base of the neoplatonist theology (Plotinus, Proclus). Such a >>> conception is close to Augustin and the christian mystics, the Soufis, the >>> Kabbala, and the East spirituallity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm saying it is only when you conceive of something that you can say >>>> you fail to believe it exists. Otherwise you don't know what you are >>>> denying. >>>> >>> >>> That's my exact point. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> so you are the one pretending having a clear referent for each of the >>>>> name above, and you are the one acting like if you knew that none exist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. Of course I don't have clear referent of each one, but someone >>>> did. They were worshiped and prayed to and sacrificed for. But being able >>>> to conceive of them is what makes it possible say I don't believe in them - >>>> otherwise I wouldn't know what I was failing to believe. It doesn't make >>>> it harder to disbelieve; it makes it *possible*. >>>> >>> >>> We have been naive on thunder, sun, moon, and many things. Obviously we >>> have been naive on God too, but that is not a reason to abandon the idea, >>> which is basically the idea that the physical universe has a non physical >>> reason. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Atheists, like fundamentalists often talk like if they were not >>>>> ignorant in those matter. but in science, not only we are ignorant, but >>>>> the >>>>> very subject is denied by some scientists (when atheists). >>>>> >>>>> People like Gödel and Einstein where pissed of by "free-thinkers" and >>>>> "atheists", because they were quite aware of their dogmatic attitude. I >>>>> would have read them about that subject, I would have been less naive, and >>>>> probably run away from them. >>>>> >>>>> Atheism and fundamentalist theism is really the same. Same God, same >>>>> Matter. And same violent responses against the doubter and the agnostics. >>>>> Same visceral negative attitude against the application of the scientific >>>>> attitude in the theological field. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm fine with applying the scientific attitude to the theological field. >>>> >>> >>> That is my only point here, besides the study of machine's or number's >>> theology (G* minus G). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And it is characteristic of science that it does not confirm theories, >>>> but sometimes refutes or makes theories very improbable. The theory that >>>> the world was created by a superperson who cares about humans and judges >>>> them and will reward or punish them and answer prayers, the theory known as >>>> "theism", has been tested and found false. >>>> >>> >>> If that is true, we abandon that notion of God, and then we can come >>> back to the original scientific conception of God: the Unknown origin of >>> the Universe. >> >> >> I'm ok with that, why calling that "god" ? >> >> >> Contemporary philosophers call it God. I use the most common term. If I >> could really choose I would use a more feminine name, as "God" as a >> masculine connotation which annoy me a lot. The greek "Theos" means >> panorama, and is the etymology of "theorem": a result which gives a >> panoramic view summing the main things. >> >> >> >> >> You want to be followed and *misunderstood* by all >> christians/muslims/jewish on earth ? >> >> >> I want to be understood by all agnostic scientists. In science we use the >> common vocabulary, and we provide technical simplification. When I use the >> term "biology" instead of "theology", not only this dismissed the G*/G >> distinction, but I was attacked by people saying that is was theology, and >> they were right. Using "theology" prevents the work to be labeled >> "theology" with the negative connotation. I follow both Cantor and Gödel on >> theology. I have also remark that good willing believer have far less >> problem with my reasoning, including the fact that I reason on that >> subject, than with self-labeled atheists. I certainly feel closer to >> believer than disbeliever (who still believes in a transcendental reality, >> but take it for granted, and are unaware that physics is not the same field >> as metaphysics and theology). >> Then you you read the Muslim, Jewish and Christian theologian (instead of >> the "sacred texts"), you can discover that they are very often quite >> rational and serious on the matter, and I have been inspired by many of >> them. >> >> >> >> When you write "god", they don't follow what you have in mind, >> >> >> My talk is addressed to all Löbian machine. The vocabulary appears to be >> a problem only the atheists believers, and of course by any fundamentalist, >> that are the people who are opposed to come back to accepting our >> "scientific" ignorance in the matter. >> >> >> >> >> as such, using god your way is totally misleading because most of the >> people who read you won't have your meaning in mind. >> >> >> >> That is true for all terms. What term should I use? I cannot use >> "reality" or "truth", because that would be the same error than the >> atheists with the term "universe". >> Physics studies the universe, >> but physicalist metaphysics study the consequence that God = the Universe >> (the universe is the explanation of everything) >> likewise comp conclude that God = Truth, but that is a consequence, not >> an assumption. >> In all case those are different things. >> >> >> >> As such, you should restrain from using that word, it's useless. >> >> >> What term would you suggest? >> > > What about "ultimate reality" ? Because that's what you say it means... > It's neutral, does not have all the connotations linked with the word > god... and eventually, that's what you want to convey. > > > > But I have not much problem with the connotation with the word God. I > don't listen to fundamentalists. I reject the answer but I appreciate the > questions. > > Then, one of the most beautiful coherent mystic and rationalist theology, > the neoplatonist or Plotinus one, get an arithmetical interpretation when > applying the platonist definition of knowledge (Theaetetus) on machine > self-referential arithmetical provability (Gödel, Löb, Solovay). > > If a machine equates God with "ultimate reality", >
I do not... I don't equate god with anything. > or "ultimate truth", or "arithmetical truth", despite she is "correct", > she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G proposition, on > herself, in the inconsistent way. > No, he/she just use non contreversial word. > > God as no description and "ultimate reality" looks already too much to a > description. > That's what you say but see below... > You will tell me that "arithmetical truth" is also a description. I will > tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside arithmetic, > machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no more > than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine). > > All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality > You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more than utlimate reality... > is arithmetical truth, > So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god... > but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality > once again, it seems you can... > is arithmetical truth, or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent. > Ok, if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god* you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight. > That explains the hotness of the subject. > > G* minus G is meta-theology, it says what can be true but not rationally > believed or asserted as such by machine. > It is a theory about what is reality ultimately, it is about the primitive nature of reality, it's not about *god*. > > What can be rationally asserted, is that: IF comp is true then > arithmetical truth plays the role of God > I disagree, it plays the role of ultimate reality noy *god* for the currently shared accepted meaning. > for the machine, but no machine can consistently believes that God is > arithmetical truth, > I don't believe in any currently human written god, as such god is not an adequate word to describe what I believe. Quentin for herself. She can prove that for simpler machine than themselves > (simpler means that the machine as less provability ability in arithmetic). > > Machines get mystical when looking inward, they talk like Plotinus and the > rationalist mystics. Plotinus is quite in pain when he attempts to explain > that the One has no name, and that calling it "the One" is already a > mistake. God named is Not God. That's the first axiom of the Tao (called > Dao nowadays). > > I don't know if the 'ultimate reality' is a person, but I am pretty sure > that the relation that a machine can have with 'it' can be, for a large > amount, personal and non communicable, and 'god' can be felt more like an > 'ultimate first person experience', for the mystic machine. > > I have no problem with the word "god". I have no problem with the fairy > tale either. I have problem with all those who take the fairy tales > seriously, to assert them literally, or to deny them, which I think just > perpetuate them. > > All religion have common points. You might read Aldous Huxley 'Philosophia > Perennis'. Alan Watts is not bad, Smullyan is very good on the Tao. We can > focus on them and be open minded in the search of the solution of the > mind-body problem. Using "God" for the ultimate reality, it seems to me, > can in the long run enlarge the listening and the understanding of what the > machines are already telling us. > > We can call it X, and what matter is that we agree on proposition on X > like, > > X is has no description > If x makes a description of X then shit happens in the neighborhood of x, > X is responsible for all the questions you can have, > X cannot be invoked in public decision, nor in public proof or explanation > etc. > > Then may be we will be able to formulate and perhaps answer, in this or > that theory (like comp, or not-comp) if X is a person or a thing, what is > the nature of our relation with X, etc. > > In some context, "ultimate reality" is OK, but in many context "God" will > better makes the point, like in "God created only the integers". That rings > better than "The ultimate reality created only the integers". Einstein > would not have said that the "ultimate reality" is not malicious. Well OK, > that's easy :) > > Bruno > > > > > Quentin > > >> People on this list have already provide terms, but it did not work as >> well as "God", which is used easily to denote the ultimate unknown >> transcendental reality in all culture, where terms like 'universe', >> 'reality', 'truth' would beg the question. >> >> Aurobindo uses sometimes the term "existence", (see the quote below(*)), >> but I have explained to Stephen King why this would be disastrous given the >> precise modern use of "existence" in logic and metaphysics. >> >> Another advantage of using "theology" is to remind that comp is a >> religion, meaning that although comp is science, the *practice* of comp >> needs a special non provable belief in a form of reincarnation, and that >> nobody can impose to you that belief, i.e. an artificial brain. It helps to >> understand the comp ethics which is the right to say "no" to the doctor. >> >> Many religious tradition agrees with most features of the comp "God" or >> "Goddess": >> >> - That it is the incomprehensible "reason" of all things. >> - that is has no name, no description, no images, etc. >> - that it can't be use in science as an explanation (that follow from the >> first point above), >> - that all creatures are confronted with It (again like consciousness), >> - that it can't be invoked explicitly in terrestrial public decision >> (like politics), >> - etc. >> >> Is it a sort of person? perhaps, with some large sense of "sort". It has >> a personal aspect in the manifestation of soul (the inner God that we can >> all awaken, or simply the first person when not too much sleepy). >> >> Bruno >> >> (*) >> *"What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?* >> >> *And it is this ...* >> *Existence that multiplied itself* >> *For sheer delight of being* >> *And plunged into numberless trillions of forms* >> *So that it might* >> *Find * >> *Itself* >> *Innumerably" (Aurobindo)* >> >> >> >> >> Quentin >> >> >>> It is discussed in many books, including many treatise written by >>> theologian, in most traditions. Of course such theologians have problems >>> with the religious institutions. But that is a point in their favor, as >>> most institutions perpetuates authoritative arguments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But the ONE is not anyone of those, as it has no name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A god, with a name, that might be a comp reason to disbelieve in it, >>>>>>> or to try to look who is hiding beyond the name. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly! And "God" is a name. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is a NickName, pointing on the one without name, and in theology, >>>>> it is the most common term used. To change its name would be to give an >>>>> importance of the name. It is the axiom one about God, "It has no name", a >>>>> bit like the tao, which once named is no more the tao. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No it's not a nickname, that's why it is capitalized. >>>> >>> >>> It is capitalized because it is unique, and a name of something very >>> often conceive as a person. With comp, the "person" character of the outer >>> God is an open problem. But the inner God *is* a person. >>> >>> >>> >>> You just like to use it because some atheists gave you a hard time. >>>> Otherwise you could call it "reality" or "the tao" or something else not >>>> implying theism (see definition above). >>>> >>> >>> Not at all. I use it because all the theologians I read use it, and this >>> in many variate cultures. If I was using TAO, most people would believe >>> that I defend specifically Taoism, but what I defend is more general than >>> that, and closer to the Greek notion explained in Plato and Neoplatonism. >>> The problem I got with atheists came before I use any term from >>> theology, as they were oppose the word "mind", "consciousness", AI, and >>> even "computer" for many. I still don't know if the problem was ideological >>> at the start, but apparently it has become ideological. >>> >>> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
