On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
If a machine equates God with "ultimate reality",
I do not... I don't equate god with anything.
Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God.
As I said, I cannot define "God" by "Ultimate reality", but I can meta-
define God as the ultimate reality.
I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between
truth and provable.
It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own
consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a
new different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own
Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same
machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent.
This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies
can easily become inconsistent.
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...
Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you
need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that "God" needs
an act of faith.
Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our
Aristotelian paradigm) that "the ultimate reality" asks for an act of
faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom.
That's also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in
The reason I use and insist on "theology", "God" etc. is that I fear
people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book
in science which use expression like "science has proved", or worst
"we know that ...".
By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy
tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks*
more serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non
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...
I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand
that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our
consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit.
The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that
the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that
such beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G.
It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a
machine simpler than us "scientifically" (indeed it is mainly given by
G*). But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not
even assuming) for comp and our relative correctness.
but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality
once again, it seems you can...
? (the sentence is not finished)
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.
No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name,
no description, should be invoked in argument, etc.
And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy
tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem.
You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by
honest researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people
who use the idea to install there power.
Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God?
Both have got a lot of names, and are essentially mind-blowing things,
but for Cannabis, we got 75 years of brainwashing, for God we got 1500
years of brainwashing.
Do you think that by changing the name of Cannabis, it would become
legal? Well, it is a way to avoid locally problem and that why it has
so many names, and the same appeared with "God", but really, to
abandon God and theology, is still a way to credit the bandits who
lied about cannabis and God.
God is not more that unpleasant all loving entity sending your friends
to hell, than cannabis is a terrible drug which makes you rape and
Religion is not a problem, it is a natural thing fro all finite
creature looking inward, and around. the problem is when a religion,
or a science, is stolen by bandits, as a tool for getting power.
I appreciate the anticlericalism of the atheists, but they throw out
the baby with the bath water, and by doing so, they make the whole of
theology into pseudo-science and, worst, the whole of science into a
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*.
There is a thin hair difference between the two notions as explained
above. That there is a ultimate reality is basically trivial, or looks
trivial. "God" is less trivial, and as far as I know, comp confirms a
large part of the existing theology, if you care to abstract from the
myths and legends overused by professional liars.
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.
You are right, but if you take the time to read them, you would see
that the theologian agree with you, and that is why the first axiom of
God or Tao is that once he has a written name, you are already
inconsistent. So we need to go at the meta-level, and use a term for
the pointer on It, with all the danger of seeing the term stolen by
unscrupulous (and inconsistent) bandits.
If you don't do that, you keep the term in the hands of the bandits.
That's why the catholics hierarchy loves the atheists: as the atheists
do a free advertising of the churches by crediting them or allowing
only them for talking on God, and this hides the fact that they (the
atheists) used an act of faith when pretending that there is a
(primitive) physical universe (that seems obvious, but scientifically
that is an *extraordinary claim* asking for an extraordinary proof or
evidence (which has not been found, nor even searched).
I think it is the only way to fight the pseudo-religions and pseudo-
sciences: to allow us to use the scientific method in the fundamental
field. Only this makes it possible to doubt *all* gods, ... from the
one with a beard to Primitive Matter.
I got problem with atheists well before I used the term theology or
God. They understood the point, and their opposition is completely
independent of the use of vocabulary. In the Lille thesis I was asked
to replace "theology" by "psychology", and that made the "silent"
opposition even worse, and the difference between G and G* get
confused with the difference between conscious and unconscious by
psychologists, leading to new kind of misunderstandings.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.