On 07 Dec 2013, at 09:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is subjective is the appreciation, or not, of the term
"theology", and that is subjective indeed, but it could also be
related to "strategy". My difference with Quentin is on that point.
But I have already hidden the wording "theology" for a long time,
and that strategy did not really worked, and so I come back to the
usual method of choosing word: using the word the most applied by
those in the fields or appreciating the subject.
But have you really? Are your papers read and appreciated in the
theology departments of great universities? or in the physics
It is better appreciated in the biology department (and by few
logicians). Biologists seems quite open despite they want to use UDA
as a proof that comp is false, or even that CT is false, and are
annoyed that comp points on Everett and multi-realities, and that
physicists are actually debating that kind of things.
Today, *many* people still believe ("religiously") in the existence
and unicity of a physical primitive universe.
Theologian and physicists might ignore too much of contemporary logic.
But I should make some try.
Logicians are mostly unconsciously positivist, and like Bruno Poizat
said: they hate nothing more than metaphysics.
Comp is interdiciplinary, and technical, which makes everyone unhappy
with it. It is normal.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.