On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:26, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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....
If you defend a consistent theory of God, then you agree that it
*might* exist or make sense, so that the field of theology, and
theological question make sense. In particular we can study the
universal machine experience and believe in the matter, which of
course needs to agree on some definition and axiom.
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...
I am not sure. When I discuss with Muslims or with Christians they
agree that God, very typically, does not belong to the thing you can
understand.
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 don't think so. They are adult and can tell me so, or take distance
with the talk of the universal machine, or abandon comp, or whatever.
With comp, *after UDA*, working in arithmetic, things like Souls,
Arithmetical Truth, Consciousness, God, etc. are NOT assumed. To
interrogate the machine we have to agree on some definition, and they
have to be large.
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.
Call it "ultimate reality". It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp
to see that this rings a bit faulty.
There is no problem to call it "ultimate reality", as long as you are
open it might have "personal" aspects, and have no prejudice on wht
that "ultimate reality" can be (with this or that hypothesis).
Even if the Outer God might not be exactly a person, it can make sense
only through our personal relation with It, and they can depend to
what you identify yourself with.
I have no problem with atheists, but some fundamentalist atheists seem
to have a problem with comp and their consequences, a bit like Bill
Taylor and John Clark apparently. It is normal because those atheists
*are* believer:
- They believe that the notion of God is ultimate crackpot, and so are
annoyed when presented with an arithmetical transparent and clear
interpretation of Plotinus in elementary arithmetic (which shows, at
the least, the relative consistency of Plotinus in arithmetic).
- They believe that the brain is a machine, and are annoyed when I
insist that it is a "belief", that is an hypothesis, an assumption, a
postulate, a theory.
- They believe in a primitive material universe, and that physics is
the fundamental science. Some confuse physical universe and primitive
or "in-need-to-be-assumed" physical universe, which is easy to make
me, or comp, looking mad.
I know that there are atheists who know better. I describe only the
atheists who have a problem with computationalism and its
consequences. I have never met them, as they have declined the desire
to meet me, which makes me think they are not scientists at all.
My feeling is that you have a prejudice on religion, perhaps for some
reasons. Did you have a religious education?
If you ask the people in the street on physics, 99% of them are wrong.
We don't mislead them by teaching them physics. It is normal a bigger
proportion of people might be wrong in theology, given that we
forbidden the interrogative inquiries and experiences in the field
since about 1500 years in West and 1000 year in Middle-East. You must
read the book of theologians, not those who repeat "sacred texts" like
parrots, and who have been programmed by those who stolen the field,
for obvious purpose, degrading the issue with varied degrees.
By mocking those who search the truth in the matter, you make yourself
de facto an ally of those who pretend they found it.
By refusing to discuss those matter rationally, in the axiomatic way,
you make yourself de facto an ally of those who want to keep it as
dogma, and who evacuate the modesty needed for progressing.
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.
