2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

>
> 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.
>

No I don't....


>
> As I said, I cannot define "God" by "Ultimate reality", but I can
> meta-define God as the ultimate reality.
>

God is nothing else than a human invention... God as understood by billions
people on earth... You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely
not standard usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read
you... I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing "belief" to
atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist,
I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most
atheist means when they say they are atheist.

Quentin




> 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 consistency.
>
> 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 Plotinian-like
> theology.
>
> 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 scientific manner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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 kill
> people.
>
> 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 pseudo-theology.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  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.
>
> 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.

Reply via email to