Thanks, Bruno, for your thoughtful response. - However: you wrote *"...This might mean that you are not aware of the discovery of Gödel and Tarski which show the transcendence and independence of the arithmetical reality with respect to us (and provably so with the computationalist hypothesis)..."*
to be 'aware' is not equivalent to 'accept'. I do not shortchange REALITY into the (any - Peano?) math-aspect of it. Similar exclusion for restricted (sigma-?) truth definitions. Ontological reality IMO is restricted to the inventory of our 'ontological' worldview as of yesterday. My agnosticism (and I paraphrase it more widely than the usual) includes the "firm belief" (call it knowledge?) that we DO NOT KNOW everything (yet?) but the so far unknown/unknowable parts DO influence our known world and the processes within. I feel it a cop-out to hide behind some (digital, or not) unidentified machine to state that such machine DOES know what we don't. If that disqualifies me from YOUR definition of 'agnostic as of the 'comp' domain - I humbly accept. To accept the arithmetical truth - that is 'inexhaustible and far beyond us' - would make me a fantast, a dreamer. I am not a mathematician (in spite of my first Ph.D. - chem-phys-math - of 1948) and prefer to stay within my ignorance. John M On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11 Jul 2014, at 21:58, John Mikes wrote: > > Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST > something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist 'requires' SOME > concept of 'a' (any) god as a target. > > > This is very well said. > > > - MY - agnostic, however, does not find any such 'target' reasonble so the > totality has to be built on some different basis. Who knows on what kind > of? > I call it an infinite complexity, not on arithmetical basis as Bruno > advised, since arithmetic ways of thinking are HUMAN logic and the totality > is much much wider than what such restrictive boundaries would allow. > > > But this, I don't really follow. > This might mean that you are not aware of the discovery of Gödel and > Tarski which show the transcendence and independence of the arithmetical > reality with respect to us (and provably so with the computationalist > hypothesis). Or that you confuse the arithmetical reality with Peano > Arithmetic. I can understand that Peano Arithmetic is "Human Logic", and it > fails indeed to capture the whole truth, as any theory does. But it is > exactly because we know today that all theories fail to capture the > arithmetical reality that we have an incentive to be *agnostic* on the > question if there is anything else beyond the arithmetical reality which we > should postulate/assume to explain consciousness and matter. > > Then the sigma_1 (computable) fragment of that reality is the same for all > entities, human of not, as those propositions can be put in the form: "This > or that machine stops or does not stop", and it would make no sense that a > machine stop for some alien and not for some others. Then with comp, we can > restrict the ontological reality to the sigma_1 truth. > > If you have a reason to believe that there might be more in the > ontological reality (more than the sigma_1 truth), then you have a reason > to believe that we are not supported by digital machine, making you NOT > agnostic on the comp theory. > > > > Since 'a' god does not fit into my agnosticism, no bible could have been > written by it. Scripture etc. is a nice remnant of times when people had > too much time on their hand and a fantasy-world with very few restrictive > items. > Then power usurped the general belief of the public and exploited it. We > are still living within such. > > > Yes, unfortunately, and this will be with us for still a long time. > > > > Please add to every one of my sentences in ( - ) "I dunno". > > > That is wise, but by asking more than arithmetic (the reality, not the > theories), you seem to miss a "I dunno". Keep in mind that before Gödel, we > thought that arithmetic was computable, but now, we know that only a tiny > part is computable. That part is enough (when we postulate comp), but for > the internal epistemologies, we need the "complete" arithmetical reality > which is probably beyond all theories, made by humans or aliens, or even a > vast variety of divine entities (divine here means "non-machine emulable"). > The arithmetical truth is inexhaustible. It is far beyond us. > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > JM > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:27 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It sounds like you are describing an agnostic. An atheist seems to be >> against (often some specific collection of) gods. An agnostic just says I >> don't know anything about that, and until some evidence comes up I won't >> consider the possibility worth discussing. >> >> Hence >> >> Agnostic - there *could* be a teapot orbiting the Sun, although I >> consider it highly unlikely >> >> Atheist - there definitely isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun. >> >> Sorry to re-re-re-repeat myself, as you say it's a well worn subject. >> >> PS could it be Brent quoting Bruno? >> >> PPS their initials are suspiciously similar. I remain agnostic on whether >> they are really the same person (but consider it highly unlikely). >> >> >> -- >> 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 [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.
