RE: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:25:25 -0700 

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 2:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,
non-digital, computer architecture

 

 

On 05 Jul 2014, at 10:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:





 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 12:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean,
non-digital, computer architecture

 

 

On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:43, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:






 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

 

 

On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:







On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:





This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing god
doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does exist.  But it is still
ambiguous because it assumes that "God(s)" is definite.  I don't believe
that personal agent type gods exist; but I'm on the fence about some
creative principle or unnamable truths  that some people would like to call
"God". I believe that theist (e.g. Abrahamic) gods do not exist.

 

I comment Brent first, here.

 

OK. fair enough, but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might
still have important relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even with the
notion of arithmetical truth as pointed too by a machine. 

 

But doesn't "God" imply an Identity, which cannot by its very nature be all
things,

 

 

Yes. That is why the neoplatonist will "add" the notion of the "ONE" ("god")
to the Platonist Noùs, which is the "world of ideas" and represent the "all
intelligible things" (justifiable or not).

The "One" has to be "simple" for Plotinus. 

 

I find searching for abstract unifying mystic potential far more rewarding
spiritually than Theist patriarch preacher pronouncements. I believe I have
a better understanding now how you intend the term. It is, I am certain you
know, a term so fraught with historical baggage that triggers all manner of
individual responses in various different peoples brains.

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what makes you think I defined God by "all thing". It is more
the truth about all things. This can be shown to be non definable, and as
such might not have an identity in the sense you are using that term here. 

 

The point I was trying to make was about the common conception of God as of
some all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Even in faiths that prohibit, any
explicit depiction of God this external identifiable conceptualized being
exists - at least in so far as the believers are concerned.

 

>>Neoplatonists solves that difficulty by justifying that the "being realm"
does not contain neither God (the One), nor matter. God is not part of what
exists, which means "created or emanating from the One". God "meta-exist"
like the arithmetical truth can be shown to be a non arithmetical notion. 

 

The notion of "meta-existence" is one I like, it skirts around the origin
problem quite neatly, but then doesn't this imply that God is an emergent
phenomena, along with all that exists?

 

>>Likewize, the set of all sets is not a set in Cantorian set theory.

 

Sure, otherwise you would have an infinite regression problem, but, on the
other hand isn't this another way of saying that all sets must be contained
within some larger encompassing context/environment.

 

 

 

 

 





If we speak of some formless ineffable truth or force perhaps existing in
all things, 

 

Which "all things"? That is what we are trying to put some light at.

 

 

 





then I agree with your sense of it (and seek to experience moments of flow
of as well), but often, the word symbol God - at least for me perhaps -
conjures up a theist god of one brand or another - doesn't really matter.

 

 

OK. "God" is not a name (in the logician sense of finite 3p description). It
is a substantive use as a nickname to point on what we are searching (and
can, with comp, only be searched, not find in any 3p ways, which makes
"machine's theology" already immune to normative interpretations.

 

Of course, in our culture, the god term, without further ado, refers to
fairy tales. That was not the case for the early greek theologians, despite
the (natural?) tendency of some to (re)introduce superstition and wishful
thinking.

 

 

 





 

 






because Identity always is - and must be - defined in terms of a larger set;
i.e. good is defined in terms of evil both within some larger set that
encompasses both. The ineffable, indescribable essence is without Identity.

 

You might elaborate, as I am not even sure "identity" applies here. I would
say it is not without identity, nor with identity. I suspect a category
error.

 

Words are symbols, and symbolic meaning can only exist within a context. 

 

OK. But the "whole" is not a symbol. This is provable even for little
"whole" associated tpo machine. They cannot define by words neither the
whole (the outer 3p god), nor the soul or inner god. Those are non symbolic
entities, which does not admit any symbolic description.

 

 





When we give something Identity - even a supreme being we are implicitly
conceptualizing this supreme being within some even larger context.

 

Not really. There is no larger context available to the entity who conceive
it. That is why they will be logically not 3p describable by the entities.

 

 

 





Being needs context in order to be. 

 

The One is supposed to be what generates all possible contexts.

 

 





Definition requires contrast.

 

Exactly. That is why the outer god will not have any "definition".

 

 





It is a very hard habit to escape and set aside... our minds are always
defining things for us and we naturally tend to hang some kind of identity
on our various deities.

I would say outside of the identifiable.

 

Yes. the One is not identifiable. But using a theologically super-string
hypothesis like computationalism, makes it possible to somehow point on it
from inside, without naming or defining it. Consciousness and arithmetical
*truth* (conceive by machines) are like that too. 

 

I think we agree, and have only the usual vocabulary constraint. I did not
have a christian education, nor a jewish one, nor a muslim one, which might
have made me more immune against the identity God = the Abramanic god, and
open to the use of god in its more general conceptual sense, like with many
Platonists, and many mystics.

 

Bruno

 

 

 





Chris

 

In all texts, I take what is convincing, and let what I don't understand for
further reflexion.

 

 

And here I comment Liz:







 

OK. Although string theory almost certainly predicts that they exist
somewhere (but not in our corner of the multiverse).

 

Really? I doubt this. Daemon capable of imitating God might be prove to
exist, in both some QM-GR theory, and in arithmetic, but for God itself, I
am afraid it is more transcendent than any seemingly being in any realm. In
the terrestrial (effective) realm, you can't distinguish God from the Devil.
The most which can make (G*- non communicable) sense is that you eventually
remember who you are, being God, or the Devil. It is the only way you might
be able to differentiate them.

 

Bruno

 

 







 

 

-- 
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.

 

-- 
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.

 

-- 
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  <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected].
Visit this group at  <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit  <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>
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.

Reply via email to