On 07 Oct 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/7/2014 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2014, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested
in the question of whether God exists. The interesting thing
about it, for this list, is that "God" is implicitly the god of
theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or "the unprovable
truths of arithmetic".
How do you know that? How could you know that.
I read the interview. For example
D.G.: I'm not a believer, so I'm not in a position to say. First of
all, it's worth noting that some of the biggest empirical challenges
don't come from science but from common features of life. Perhaps
the hardest case for believers is the Problem of Evil: The question
of how a benevolent God could allow the existence of evil in the
world, both natural evils like devastating earthquakes and human
evils like the Holocaust, has always been a great challenge to faith
in God. There is, of course, a long history of responses to that
problem that goes back to Job. While nonbelievers (like me) consider
this a major problem, believers have, for the most part, figured out
how to accommodate themselves to it.
It's obvious that Garber is talking about the god of theism. If he
were referring to some abstract principle or set of unprovable
truths there would be no "problem of evil" for that god.
On the contrary, computationalism will relate qualia like pain and
evil related things with what numbers can endure in a fist person
perspective yet understand that this enduring is ineffable and hard to
justify and be confronted with that very problem.
There is a problem of evil in arithmetic. Is there a hell, for
example, that is how long can we endure a pain? Does qualitative pains
augment or diminish with the number of neurons, or the size of the
relative numbers?
Well, with comp the math is there for the theology (including physics)
of the ideally correct machine, or more exactly of the person
canonically associated (by incompleteness) by the machine to itself in
the arithmetical reality.
I am interested in all human theologies, because they can reflect the
experience of machine successful in introspection, but in practice you
can distinguish the genuine theologies, which encourage the personal
research and the use of reason, and the non genuine theologies which
invoke the talk of one machine and imposes some literal
interpretation to others and basically prevents, in one way or
another, the personal research.
It is madness to separate science and religion. It creates the many
pseudo-religions and the many pseudo-sciences.
Religion is the only goal: religare, relating and unifying the
knowable. Looking for the "theo": the ultimate panorama, or a glimpse
of it.
And science is the only tool, with the help of art, music, experiments
and experiences.
Arithmetical truth is not God per se. It is only so in the sense that
it appears for machines to behave like Plotinus describes the One, and
corrected Aristotle through the Parmenides, and this in a coherent way
with respect to assume that consciousness is invariant for some
digital permutations.
Note that the existence of pain is easy to understand from Darwin
theory, but the making of the qualia remains far from easy to
understand. Even with having the Z* \ Z logics describing the non
communicable parts of the first person experiences. Pains might result
from hidden self-lies or something.
Bruno
Brent
IF comp is true, and if Christianism is true, the meeting with St-
Ptere and the "dogma" of the Church might well be among the
unprovable truth (unprovable by you and similar) of arithmetic.
I doubt this, of course, but we just don't know. What is true and
even provable, is that if we are consistent, in that case the
discourse of the christians should be mute on this, and the
Christians should just trust God for the advertising. So the
behavior of some Christians might be inconsistent with arithmetic,
but not necessarily the doctrine. But then the behavior of most
institutionalized religion is already inconsistent or unsound with
arithmetic, and the institutionalization is consistent like the
provability of the false is consistent (but unsound) with
arithmetic. That would mean that institutionalization *is* the
theological trap that the machines already warn us against.
Bruno
Brent
-------- Original Message --------
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews
about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee
for this installment is Daniel Garber, a professor of philosophy
at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in
the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I'll conclude
with a wrap-up column on the series."
...
Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would
deny that the arguments for the existence of God have been
decisively refuted. But even so, my impression is that proofs for
the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious
discussion outside of the domain of professional philosophy of
religion. And even there, my sense is that the discussions are
largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion has gone
out of the question."
--
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.
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 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.
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 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.
