On 06 Oct 2014, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/5/2014 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
The problem with theories of everything is that they are either
too difficult to test or have been found to conflict with
observation. So almost all scientists choose to chew on some more
modest bite.
No problem. The point is that some theology or theory of everything
are testable.
But it was Plato who planted the idea that empirical testing is a
waste.
Can you give a quote, or a reference?
I am not sure. Einstein seems to have said that his laboratory was
just a pen and a paper, but that was not a serious statement, just an
emphasis on his taste for getting the laws by personal reflection. Of
course he was also starting from observation and contemplation. His
taste for physics comes from looking at a little magnet. Similarly in
Plato, a lot is said about hat we can see, and this plays some role in
his conception(s) of reality. Now systematic experimental testing is
something which will come much later, perhaps with Galilee.
Also, I don't know Plato. Some people defined Plato's philosophy by
the account he makes of Socrates. Gerson, in his book on "Ancient
Epistemology", for example, says that Plato rejects the modern theory
of knowledge, []p & p (!), because Socrates refutes Theaetetus. But I
define Plato in a more fuzzy way, and refer to him for the best
theories mentioned in his dialog, and thus I refer to Plato's
Theaetetus for the first written version of what is knowledge (and
that Gerson call the standard theory of knowledge adopted by the
modern) + the general "cavern" view of reality, to simplify the
pedagogy. In fact Plato is 100% scientist. He never say what he
thinks, and present all the theories he heard about, and show, with
Socrates, the inconsistency of some of them, or of some combinations.
Aristotle does that too, but in a less clear way, and with a so much
big emphasis on Nature's observation that he will put the basic stone
on which physicalism and naturalism will develop (and with some
coercion when theology was abandon to the politics (in "our" Roman
Empire).
Our senses deceive us, so we only need ratiocination to discern the
Truth.
Our sense can only deceive us relatively to some truth we believe in
the sense it gives sense to the search.
Ratiocination cannot discern the Truth alone. It needs the Truth. (If
not you are under the confusion of type
[]p = []p & p).
Which is why Plato was easily made to seem a Christian by St.
Augustine.
Or the machine ST. Augustin introspect itself enough to discern what
the machine Plato did already discern.
I am not sure Augustine tried to make Plato looking Christian
'literally". It seems to me he only tried to convey a bit of Platonism
to the Christians. His writing on Time seems to me sincere. He seems
to have a genuine motivation for metaphysics.
We might say that the history of physics is a sequence of
refutation of Aristotle physics, but only now, we have a
refutation of his metaphysics and theology.
Plato makes still sense, though, and is as much rational.
No, Plato would be a supporter of logicism
Perhaps. before Gödel. But then he would understand Gödel, and take
computationalism instead. Not as a truth, but as a theory proposed in
some dialog. I guess we are only that. Characters in Plato's Great
Dialogs :)
or Tegmark's everythingism.
Or Wei Daï and Hal Finney's one, who knows. Eventually all machines
enough honest with themselves, and taking some time to introspect can
see this follows from computationalism. Elementary arithmetic does
contains the full emulation of all attempts to get some explanation
for an incredible happening taking plays. With arithmetic you get the
explanation from inside, but it is always partial, and makes one part
of the mystery bigger.
That includes or is equal to theology, even if it is only to
disprove the existence of this or that sort of gods when assuming
this or that hypotheses about how connecting our measurement
results.
If comp is true, which I don't know, then you can define God by
what remains when you are willing to abandon, even only for
awhile, when you stop believing in the God "Nature", or "Matter",
etc.
You can define God by whatever you like; it's just a matter of
showing who is the master, you or the word.
Me, of course. It is probably part of my trust in god, and in humans,
You don't trust them to know what they mean by their own words.
I trust them to understand exactly that.
Language is a social construct and words mean what most people think
they do - and most people think a god is a person. And they don't
think matter is a person.
If theology did ever have left the academy, all children would have
been taught the most trivial thing about God, which is that we don't
know if it is a person or not. But there are theories, and with
computationalism it might be that God is like in Plotinus (a very
bizarre status, not really a person, not a being (it does not "really"
exist), it is not conscious, yet makes all soul conscious, (like comp
makes all universal numbers conscious and in front of the maximal
arithmetical FPI). If you study the greeks, you see they tried many
different ideas to tackle that difficult question.
It makes even sense to say that "god" might be an intent, a "model"
for you to believe in, in some sense, and to follow. Like dogs can
inherit the character of their master, people can inherit the
character of their god(s).
and in machine, and in the mystics, that is the correct use of the
term. It is very reasonable, and it prevents at the start the
confusion between the serious research and the political/social
brainwashing or the popular superstition.
It continues the confusion that the established religions rely on.
The exact contrary. The established religions continue to support that
confusion, because they fear the questioning.
Somehow I appreciate the catholic church, because it has shown that it
can revised its opinion, and even makes into its principle that the
interpretation of the bible is a complex matter, for theologian,
historians, scientists to work on, and to exclude the fairy tale
literal interpretations on it. For example it revised most of its anti-
semite statements under Jean-Paul II. It revised its statement on
Galilee, too (although the Church is wrong on this, actually, and was
correct at the time of Galilee, as the Church asked him to accept that
his idea was only a theory (!).
Note that Al Gazhali, a 10th century muslim who was not much keen on
Neoplatonism, already tried to explain that theology should never
contradict scientific observation and logical conclusions.
It is not the notion of God which is dangerous. It is the abandon of
reason in the studies which is dangerous. And you can't avoid that if
you don't use reason in that field.
It is a like the medication. It is not dangerous, but become so
quickly when made illegal.
In life and in religion, the choice is between logic and war. Between
question without answer and answer without question.
What is your problem with the consequence of computationalism, beyond
it looks quite shocking from the aristotelian perspective (but then
quantum mechanics is arguably as much shocking)?
And the point is that it is testable. It already explains (and
enlarge) the quantum weirdness, the existence of the person and all
the ineffable about them, their lack of names, etc. It explains the
rôle of mathematics or arithmetic, and the discourse of the machines
already illustrated they can access their own non justifiable annulus
G* minus G, and its intensional variant, plunging the theory of quanta
in a more general theory of person qualia.
Bruno
Brent
A lot of evidence for some God (like the god Matter), is not a
proof of its existence, still less so in front of complex open
problems.
To be able to do research in theology requires the ability to
doubt your religion.
Certainty is madness. If you are OK with spirituality, you should
be OK with religion, and angry only against the religion when
used as authoritative power to control other people.
But that's exactly the function of religion. It binds them together
by a creed which they must all accept. It's one of the few
insightful things Alberto has said: The first sacrifice one makes to
a religion is lying in public. Saying you believe with absolute
faith preposterous things that no one could rationally believe.
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.
