On 10/6/2014 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Then ask them what they mean by "God" and use it that way in the future.
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,
Though it may be 400yrs late.
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 (!).
You sound like an apologists: The Church not only wanted to Galilee to say his idea was
only a theory, they wanted him to accept that their idea was THE TRUTH - and they were
willing to torture him as their argument.
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.
Then why is it any more than science? Why suppose it has a separate domain?
It is not the notion of God which is dangerous. It is the abandon of reason in the
studies which is dangerous.
But the notion of God (not your idiosyncratic notion) is dangerous precisely because it
says to abandon reason and obey God out of faith:
"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
--- John Calvin
"When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else, for we begin by
believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe.... I warn people not to
seek for anything beyond what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek
for. In the last resort, however, it is better for you to remain ignorant, for fear that
you come to know what you should not know.... Let curiosity give place to faith, and
glory to salvation. Let them at least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know
nothing against the Rule [of faith] is to know everything."
--- Tertullian
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
--- Martin Luther
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
--- Martin Luther
And note that Luther and Calvin were reformers. They were not just supporting the
political rulers of their time.
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.
So you think opium and heroin only became dangerous 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)?
I don't know what you mean by "have a problem with"? Do you mean fail to
believe in?
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.
But those things may have other explanations and it may be that it explains too much...and
predicts too little.
Brent
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours."
--- Stephen Henry Roberts, historian (1901-71)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
