On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would
use "tao", that would make the results looking new-age. Use any
another name, people will add more connotations than with the
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or
monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity.
If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name,
people will add more connotations than with the concept of god,"
will you stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?
See my papers: I do not use the word "God". I use it in this list,
because I answered post using it.
It's my recollection that you used it first (and also "angels") it
metaphorically describing the scope of unprovable truths in
arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now.
Ah! Good memory! Yes I presented my "formal friends G and G*" in that
way. I called G* the guardian angel of the machines.
It is a way to honor an argument by Judson Webb which shows the
particular case of just Gödel's incompleteness theorem being the
guardian angel of the Church thesis. Indeed you can look at Gödel's
theorem as a confirmation of CT, as CT implies incompleteness
rigorously in two informal lines.
In the Plotinus paper I use "the one".
OK. Does that mean the same as "the ground of all reality"?
Ground still looks a bit too much physicalist to me, and does not
convey the fact that the personhood of it is an open question.
If so, it seems a bit too specific in that assumes a singular.
Which confirms my point. God's main attribute is its unicity.
Plotinus' work can be sum up into how the ONE became MANY, and how the
MANY can return to the ONE.
Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and
0 might be the goar. This would be consistent with theologies much
older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil. Confucian yin and
yang.
I don't think that the Yin and Yang is confucian. The book of
transformation is older, I think. To verify.
And more recently Monod's necessity and chance.
Yin and Yang are not fundamental with comp, but can be explained by
the tension between Bp which is quite "yin" and Bp & p, which is quite
yang.
We should not equivocate "fundamentally important" and "primitive" (=
has to be assumed, up to some equivalence, in the theory).
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
