On 12/7/2013 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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 departments?
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
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.
I notice that you did not mention any interest at all from departments of
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.