2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > On 01 Dec 2013, at 12:32, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > >> >> On 01 Dec 2013, at 09:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> >>> >>> 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 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. >> > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
