On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:
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 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.
I notice that you did not mention any interest at all from
departments of theology.
There is no department of theology in the universities where I
developed comp, but some scholar on Platon and neoplatonism were
interested. And in some catholic universities, where philosophers and
logicians can interact (unlike in other "a-religious" places), the
people are interested and have invited me to do many conferences.
Christians are not so happy with comp, but they see it helps to think
on the questions, and are open to discussion.
Atheists act like Bill: silence.
I have never met them, and people reports that their only argument is
shoulder shrugging. No word at all. Just two lines of an atheist
philosopher personal conviction. More grave defamation has been
reported too, and some makes me think there are also personal issues
and susceptibility problems, but they continue to act like if it was
my lack of atheism which can justify their denies of reason. Some
really seem to want me accept that "science" is "money", and nothing
else.
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.
