On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> > >> That's enough for me, if you want to put credit on fairy tale, it's your >> problem, not mine. >> > > Yeah, but then Ramanujan and a lot of brilliant musicians, mystic, > platonist etc. also require some axioms to work from. In a sense they also > require fairy tale leap of faith, like working with any theory, but I don't > consider any to be inherently superior or more BS than the other. Depends > on the dream in which these are embedded and where this takes us. PGC > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bruno does not obviously believe in the abrahamic god as he calls that >>>> fairy tales... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory >>>>> semantic implications as you do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well ask him... >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think his usage is closer to "metaphoric guide story" of some >>>>> theology, >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is left about that theology when you remove the "fairy tales" ? >>>> >>> >>> You tell me. I like a good story. >>> >> >> I'm asking you, you're the one saying there is something left... >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g. deriving politics >>>>> or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently wrote of >>>>> "non-compness of Ganesha" in some thread, which presupposes some >>>>> familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all "silly >>>>> fairy tales"... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this >>>>> infantilization discrimination sense. >>>>> >>>>> If you were in power there would be prohibition >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please refrain to put actions in your opponent mouth, you say that, I >>>> don't and wouldn't act like you say... >>>> >>> >>> Why wouldn't it be consistent to get rid of the bs theologies, to use >>> your terms, if they can so easily be identified? >>> >>> I don't see any of these statements leading to some clarification of >>> notions and possibilities of ultimate reality; you're just stating "no, >>> that linguistic pointer is definitely false" and people practicing >>> theologies x,y,z are "misled" >>> >> >> The people who are misled is not you or Bruno, but the billions of people >> associating god *with an all loving, omniscient, omnipresent person*, >> because you use their vocabulary to design something *totally* different. >> Hence using their vocabulary is misleading. >> >> Quentin >> >> >> >> >>> while Quentin is not. Good for Quentin, is all I can add, then. PGC >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Quentin >>>> >>>> >>>>> of religious mythology, which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the >>>>> holy economy. How is doing our accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, >>>>> counting, chore thing? Exactly the same, and no matter how much you do, >>>>> pray or gain, you're always out where you started in some sense... Another >>>>> round? PGC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Quentin >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief >>>>>>> with you as god of validity instead of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> God as understood by billions people on earth... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to >>>>>>> speak of Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this >>>>>>> type >>>>>>> of meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard >>>>>>> across many religions and forms of spirituality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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)... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other >>>>>>> people's theology is what that is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus >>>>>>> weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but >>>>>>> misleading as I've laid out above. PGC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 [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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 [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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 [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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 [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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 [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. >> > > -- 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.
