On 25 Jun 2014, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction
to "Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic
(~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[]
and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference.
It's more complicated than that. It depends on what you mean by
"g". Is it the god of theism, who is a person who created the
world, answers prayers, and judges humans in an afterlife. Or is it
the god of deism who created the world but doesn't act in it. Or is
it one of the "gods" of mystics who is a principle or "nature" or an
unnameable and unknowable something.
Good questions. Given the vast apparent spectrum of the meaning of
"god", I will be agnostic (~Bg), that I is I do not believe in god,
just because I am not aware of the sense of the term.
Then someone tells me that "god" refers to the one who made the
creation in six days.
I ask him/she "literally or in the legend?". If she/he answers me "in
the legend", then I can believe in *that God*, as it is the one of
Plato, just disguised a little bit, I think. If he/she answers me "no,
in reality", then, well I run away.
Then a universal machine cannot distinguish a machine more complex
than itself from a god, among a hierarchy of gods (that is entities
believing in some sense, in set of arithmetical truth not computably
generable), nor that with the whole arithmetical truth, the analytical
truth.
Now, about "god", or "the god", I made often clear what I meant by
that, and it is in the large sense of anything responsible for your
consciousness here and now. From this, + comp, you can derive it is
unnameable, transcendental, escaping all third person descriptions,
not-(not-accessible) from the first person perspective, ... well the
whole G* minus G mathematics including the intensional variants (this
gives also the testable logic of the observable).
I am sure that Mechanism would have seemed like a blaspheme for some
antic Platonist, but the chapter on Numbers, by Plotinus, illustrates
that what the antic lacked to avoid the blaspheme with comp is the
Church-Turing thesis. The genuine corresponding "blaspheme" with comp,
will consist in confusing the machines's soul ([]p & p) with the
machine's body ([]p, []p & <>t) or 3p description (and 1p-plural).
I see the thread is long, I might answer some posts soon or later,
probably.
Bruno
Literally "atheist" is one who is not a theist, one who fails to
believe in the god of theism. Thomas Jefferson was called an
atheist because he believed in the god of deism.
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
