Bruno ended his post with: *You did not answer my argument that you are not that much agnostic when it comes to "is there anything more than (human, if you want) numbers?*
*By using the expression "human math", it means you do believe in some non human math. What is it, and why do you believe in that things, and are you open that such non human math might be the correct ontological realm of everything?* The two par-s have one thing in common: they pretend to "speak for me" with Bruno's mind. If *I do not believe *that EVERYTHING copmes from numbers (and watch the nex par: 'human logic' to that) that has nothing to say about WHAT I do, or should believe, so it gives no conclusion to judge my agnosticism. The 2nd par, however, puts an idea into my mind unauthorized (and untrue): my alleged (and nonexistant?) belief in a "non human math". The rest is hogwash. I warned many times my highly esteemed list-collegues from interpreting* my* term for 'agnosticism' from the definitions of classical dictionaries. It contains the notion that - as a thinking person - I accept MORE to this 'World' than described in our yesterday's inventory and I accept the notion that at this point we are not capable to 'know' all those - so far unmet and unexplained - unknown components of some infinite complexity *(infinite*, because we so far still did not see the 'limits' and *complexity* because it goes further than our present (human?) thinking). The stuff for such 'belief' comes from the cultural historic study of the past, from gradually collecting more and more thus far unknown notions (understood rightly, or wrongly). With THAT agnosticism I lived and worked quite satisfied in *natural science* R&D for a half century, collecting degrees, awards, patents. publications, even editing a so called science magazine. Maybe my 'other side' as a semi professional musician (performing classical music for public audiences over 75 years) helped me to stay in balance.) I started to "think" at the young age of 66. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote: > > I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended > it. > I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of > the World' > no matter on what theory. > About the "GOD" concept???? did *ANYBODY EVER *communicated about it on > a basis NOT hearsay, NOT dreaming, or 'postulate for otherwise > ununderstandables'? > (Meaning: within our momentary capabilities of human mental level?) > Is there anything known pointing to the "GOD" concept besides our > ignorance? > I discount "God said so to me" because the noun is unsecured. > Furthermore: I refuse Bruno's hint to the unoiform background to a > "Christian God concept" in this thread, initiated indeed on Muslim ideas. > My position: a so called atheist requires a 'god' to deny. > > > More exactly, they need some sufficiently precise concept of God, so that > it makes sense to deny it vigorously. > > I know two types of atheists. Some deny only the christian god, and some > deny all gods (except the physical universe, but with my definition, if you > deny all gods except the physical universe, you make the physical universe > into a god (the orogin of all things). > > > > In my agnostic thoughts I accept lotsof 'things' we cannot?/do not? know > so far. I don't make up my mind to substitute for such unknowable domains > using our so-far acknowledged (poorly understood??) knowledge-base as > explanatory. Including math (arithmetics) - a firm staple of our *human* > logic and mentality. > > > > You cannot know that. And to do science you do need to believe in some > truth independent of you. > > You might have only a John Mikesean notion of "human". > > > > > I do not go for arguments EXPLAINING phenomena by (human) math. > > > Why humlan math, and not human physics, and human science, etc. By > definition we look for the universal, and never pretend it is the truth. > But if your allusion is correct, it is equivalent with: as we will never > know for sure, all research is ridiculous. But then we will get the > superstition for sure ... > > > > Explanation is not procreation. Procreation - in most domains so far - is > beyond us, so I accept it as unknowable. Let us 'see' some "God-related > facts" (if there are facts to see at all) without 3p testimony or 1p > dreaming/conclusions. So far I did not. > > So I do not condone the topic "GOD" in our (science-based?) discussions. > Also: > "THEOLOGY" (science based on the Greek God-word Theos=God) is strange to > me. > My wife said often: she envies the believers for their faith-based > mentality. > > > If you believe in your wife, you already have faith based mentallity. No > problem, all machines got it when they do research. > > > > Agnostically yours > > > > You did not answer my argument that you are not that much agnostic when it > comes to "is there anything more than (human, if you want) numbers? > > By using the expression "human math", it means you do believe in some non > human math. What is it, and why do you believe in that things, and are you > open that such non human math might be the correct ontological realm of > everything? > > Bruno > > > > > > > John Mikes > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >your dislike of religions hides a defense of a religion. >>> >> >> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard >> that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> -- >> 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.
