On 02 Dec 2013, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2013 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Not as much as using "ultimate reality" for ultimate reality. One
must suspect you have some hidden agenda to avoid plain speaking.
See the comment to Quentin that I made today. There is a subtle nuance
between "ultimate reality", truth and "God".
I can come back on this, but it is so subtle, that I can hardly
explain it without using the arithmetical hypostases.
Plato and the neoplatonists, and mystics people (including machines)
seem to be aware of that nuance, but it is hard to explain it in
everyday day terms, and even Plato and Plotinus get unclear on that
nuance (cf the abyss between the Timaeus and the Parmenides).
Nobody said that a theory of everything or a theology is a simple
thing, and that's why we must be happy that with comp we can use
computer science and mathematical logic to avoid easy but misleading
identification.
It is due to that difference, between UR and God that the question of
God being a person is still open in the machine's theology, and
probably very difficult.
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.
