On 29 Jun 2014, at 19:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> I care about the notion behind. Call it the "ONE"
>> Let's call it the "BULLSHIT".
> Why not. But it can be confusing.
I don't see how "THE BULLSHIT" is more confusing than "THE ONE".
By the common sense of the world, the term "the one" fits better the
intended *monism* of the theory proposed.
Theological monotheism is a cousin of of the metaphysical monism.
"Bullshit" invokes only insult.
> It looks like according to you we just have no right to raise
doubts on the Aristotelian Primary Matter notion.
Why in hell do we keep talking about ancient ignoramuses like
Plotinus and the worst physicist who ever lived, Aristotle?
Aristotle was a brilliant physicist. Indeed, his word initiates physics.
That his theories were all refuted has nothing to do with that.
Then, as we have not solved the mind-body problem, we have to be open
to many possibilities and changes of mind.
Also, Aristotle conception of his primary matter is actually the one
that Plotinus used, and that we recover from computationalism. But I
don't expect you to get this at this stage. Aristotle is the first to
define "matter" by what is indeterminate, notably. Platon understand
the need of a "bastard calculus", as Plotinus grasped too.
In neoplatonism, we can say, roughly, that God did not create matter,
but matter is God's limitation, or limit. It is where God loses control.
Look, you treat current theology as bullshit, but you keep defending
the one of today, when it is lcear, when you study history, that the
freedom of though (the minimum needed to do science) in theology has
been repressed more or less since 523 after J. So it is not so
astonishing that we can find a lot of interesting debate among the
theologians before the 'madness/fairy-tales" get imposed to us.
> PS I think I will come back to the term "god" as it is less
confusing than "bullshit", to refer to the unknown cause or reason
of why we are here.
So these are the properties of God:
1) God does not answer prayers.
How do you know that?
By the way, it might be possible that with comp, you can't pray God.
It could already be a blaspheme. God gives only if you don't ask,
apparently.
2) God is not omnipotent.
Well, "omnipotence" is self-contradictory.
3) God is not omniscient.
With comp, God is 3p first order omniscient, and he knows a lot of the
higher order, but can't be omniscient. I agree with Grim that
"omniscience" is also self-contradictory.
4) God is not intelligent.
How do you know that?
5) God is not conscious.
With comp (+ classical epistemology), this is subtle. God, the ONE,
arithmetical truth splits into the 3p outer realm, for which the
"conscious" adjective might not make sense. But then through all
universal numbers, filtered by the truth, that "one" defines the first
person, the "you" which has no name, and which seems to play the role
of the third God of the greeks: the universal soul.
That is the inner god that, according to the mystic, you can awaken
through variate technics.
6) God has nothing to do with morality.
I think it has to do. That is probablmy the act of faith of the
Platonist, that God is Good, and that it makes it possible for us to
be attracted by the good and detracted by the bad.
Anyway, this depend on the theology. With comp, truth is good, because
falsity leads to your non existence, in many ways.
But morality and all Protagorean virtue can only be taught by "you"
examples, and can only be perverted when being patronized.
7) God is not a being at all just some sort of vague undefined
principle.
It is responsible for the whole being, and usually, does not belong to
its "created" realm. It is not nameable, and has quite "fuzzy" border,
when "known" from the inner god views.
God is a bit of the standard model (in the logician sense). No (rich)
theory at all can prove the existence of a model of itself, as this
would be a proof of self-consistency, and that is forbidden by the
second theorem of completeness. This does not prevent such theories to
get some good approximation, and even to prove theorems about that
"thing" (depsite being unnameable. Peano Arithmetic cannot define V,
the set of arithmetical true propositions, but still can define
somehow the singleton {V}. Askanas showed that PA can prove its own
Tarski theorem, with naming the truth that, by that theorem, it cannot
ascribe a name.
That sure doesn't leave much stuff for God to do,
Here you are infinitely to much quick, I'm afraid.
so it shouldn't bother us very much that even that wimpy anemic low
rent sort of God may not exist; there may be no cause for the
universe, there may be no reason there is something rather than
nothing, there may be no ultimate reason we exist.
You are right. May be. But also, may be not.
It is just a question of personal taste to be interested in the
fundamental questions. To prevent research on this, because you think
that *may be* we will find nothing is just not rational.
Just say that you are not interested in the after-life question, and
that's OK. But if you say that such question are meaningless, that
means you have already your religion on this. In science, it always
depends on what you assume, and you have to justify anything you say.
Bruno
John K Clark
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 everything-
[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.
--
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.
