On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is
still ignored by most scientists?
To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying
"Now we have the answer to the fundamental question", which is
just a crackpot kind of statement.
That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you
taken up mind reading, Bruno? If one forms a theory in which
matter is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter. What you
call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the
world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start
with an axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by
the equations and ostensively,
But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if
only by the dream argument.
I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but
that instruments, apparatus, measurement results were.
You remind me Bohr, when defining an atom by the set of classical
devices capable of measuring it.
Instruments are "fundamentally important", but useless as "primitive".
physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done. So you are factually
wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding constraint on physics.
Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it
is even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong
on that idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.
The reason FPI is "ignored" by most scientists is that most
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,
because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is
ineffable.
To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that
the fundamental questions are answered.
This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told
me that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and
those are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate
atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.
When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew
what was fundamental?
That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not
a theory. It is a concept.
Tell it to the bible thumpers.
I am not sure we can change their mind, they won't listen.
Irrationalism is, alas, most of the time, immune to reason.
Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is
still a taboo subject.
Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.
I don't "defend" it; I accept that they know what their own words
mean when they explain it to me - and I find the concept they have
explained and named "God" unbelievable.
It is part of the original definition, note.
You seem to want to tell them that when they say "God" they don't
mean what they think they mean and instead they must mean what you
want the word to mean.
I ask nothing to them, or anyone for that matter. But usually
intellectual christians are aware of the contribution of Plato and
Aristotle in theology, and are interested in the fact that
hypothetical reasoning (in comp for example) can give new light on
them and on the difference between them. Of course they don't believe
in fairy tales.
There is no use to convince people who believe or pretend to believe
in fairy tales.
In fact, there is no way to use reason for people who does not want to
use reason, but based their intimate conviction on authoritative
arguments.
But if seriousness in theology come back, then the fairy tales will
disappear by themselves, in one or two millennia. If we continue to
mock the theological question and the use of the scientific attitude
to address them, people will continue the wishful thinking, and will
continue to believe or fake belief in the fairy tales and literal
interpretations of texts.
Bruno
For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least
attribute them to others.
Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non
existence of God" can be said by an agnostic. But when said with
the meaning that God has no referent, it means either "I disbelieve
in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body
problem is a false problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI,
you get no answer. In fact those people ignore even the dialog).
OK, that's one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non
existence of God" when said with the meaning that God has no
referent, may well mean that "God" is a word that has been given so
many inconsistent meanings that I find no sense in it and I see no
reason to try to put any in. OR it might mean that I fail to
believe in a mystic principle that organizes the universe and fine-
tunes it to be hospitable to humans. OR it might mean I fail to
believe a race of aliens that have created this universe in a
digital simulation and want to be worshipped for it. So it is a
logical error to infer: it means either "I disbelieve in fairy
tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the modern myth of
primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a
false problem"
Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no
evidences exists at all for it) and God, which exists trivially for
everyone, once you take the original definition which is at the
base of fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do
research in that domain.
First, it's NOT "the original definition"; it's just an OLD
definition that you like. The original definition of a god was a
superhuman demiurge who caused inexplicable events like volcanoes,
storms, disease, and motion of the planets. "God" was defined by
the Jews as a supergod who comprehended all the powers of other gods
and also defined right and wrong for the Jews and insisted on being
worshipped according to certain rituals.
It is the bet in a fundamental reality and the acknowledgment we
don't know it.
No, that's goar.
Brent
--
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.
