On 24 Jan 2014, at 21:35, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I said "almost". I defined free-will not really by an inability,
but by the knowledge of that inability.
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is
still utterly ridiculous:
"I don't see how the notion of moral responsibility make sense
without free-will. Without free-will everyone is innocent. Free-will
is why there are prisons."
> I am not a philosophers. I don't do philosophy in public.
Hmmm.
>>When I write the word "God" I mean the same thing, or close to it,
that most people mean.
>Not all, if you look at the humanity.
True. As I said there is a small subset of the human race called
"philosophers" who are in love with the word G-O-D but not with the
concept of God, therefore they redefine the word accordingly.
>> when you write the letters G-o-d you mean something so general
and innocuous (something greater than yourself)
>Yes, transcendentally.
So anything greater than me is God, therefore Einstein is God. As I
was saying, they redefine the word accordingly such that only a fool
would say there is no God.
You attack the straw man, again. This was not the definition of "god"
that I gave. I added "non nameable", and also "responsible for your
existence". Einstein is nameable, and I doubt that he is responsible
for your existence.
> It is also what is responsible for our existence.
So being intelligent or even conscious is no longer an essential
ingredient that "God" must have,
Open problem.
and so now logic can be "God".
Now. Logic is not even responsible for the existence of the numbers.
You can't derive them from logic. logic is only a mathematical tool
for the study of system of beliefs. You need the whole non
formalisable notion of arithmetical truth to get a satifsying notion
of machine's god.
If you change the meaning of the word "two" to mean "two and one
half" then the sentence "two plus two is equal to five" would be
perfectly true. And such a redefinition is exactly what you would do
is you felt you just must say "two plus two is equal to five". But
don't you think it would be a rather silly and pointless game?
No doubt. But I am not sure that you can compare this with agreeing
that God verifies the axiom I have given for almost all people
interested in the question.
>It has no name.
Which hasn't prevented you from giving it a name G-O-D!
See Plotinus for a whole chapter on that difficulty. It is similar
with the collection of all set, which is not a set. here God is not a
name, just a pointer to the non nameable, non representable,
ineffable, etc.
Indeed, that is the reason why I use "god". Changing the name would be
like taking the name too much seriously.
>I use the notion of God by those who created the field of theology.
I agree with Richard Dawkins who doubts that theology is a "field"
at all and who "compares it with the study of leprechauns". Dawkins
also said:
"What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions
that scientists cannot? ...
Well. Comp answers this question clearly and unambiguously. physics
and cosmology are explicit subbranches of the theology of numbers. It
makes it testable, also.
But dawkins believe in the Aristotelian God "Nature", or "Physical
universe". When you postulate that there is no God, in the more usual
religious sense, you are not doing physics, but theology, and you make
the physical universe into a God. I am agnostic, but the UDA shows
that comp is incompatible with such notion of God. The physical
universe, with comp, has a reason to exist.
... In another book I recounted the words of an Oxford astronomer
who, when I asked him one of those same deep questions, said: "Ah,
now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to
hand over to our good chaplain." I was not quick-witted enough to
utter the response that I later wrote: "But why the chaplain? Why
not the gardener or the chef?" Why are scientists so cravenly
respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that
theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than
scientists themselves?"
I recall that since the closure of Plato academy, all attempt to do
theology with the scientific method is condemned equally by the
scientists and the religious. For obvious reasons.
Mocking theology is useful for all those who want keep their
prejudices alive, be it atheist or theist. Your quote is only the nth
confirmation that atheism and institutionalized theism are accomplice
against the coming back of the scientfic approach on fundamental matter.
> The europeans seem to be rather different from the US on this.
Yes. Although things were very different a few centuries ago today
Europe is the least religious continent on the planet. Europe is
leading the way, but America is still stuck in the dark ages and
your love affair with the word "G-O-D" is not helping them advance.
I believe the contrary. Only the coming back of rigor in that field
can help to fight against fundamentalism in religion, and science. If
not, you get fundamentalism at once.
You talk like a priest who is shocked because some dare to doubt your
"God", or conception of reality.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
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.
