On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 20 October 2014 03:33, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2014, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/17/2014 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's close to Plotinus "outer God" (that the called the ONE). I
am OK. But that is false for the Inner God.
For mystics and rationalist theologian, it is not completely false
to believe that there might be only one person, and that the one
conscious in us is God. But the political religion hate that idea,
because they use religion to control people, and letting people
realize that they are God is a freeing of the mind which threats
their power, so most people getting mystical experience have hide
the fact, and when they did still want explain the result, they
have done so in non-transparent way (just to avoid being burned or
banished).
With this in mind, it can be considered impolite to say that God
does not exist, because you never know to who you are really
speaking (grin).
But then for the same reason if you say you believe God exists,
you don't know what you're talking about.
It is not symmetrical. You can believe that God exist, just because
it is an old friend of yours.
But, actually, I tend to believe (for different reason) that IF you
meet God, you will keep silent on this.
So not believing God exists is quite rational.
Sure.
It is believing that God does not exist which is not rational.
Or, indeed, believing anything?
Why? You can believe that 0+x = 0, by experience, or by assumption.
You can believe in something because you find it, like believing in
prime numbers because you find one. It is harder, but still possible,
to believe in the non-existence of something, because in that case you
need to derive a contradiction for the assumption of the existence.
For example you can believe that square triangles do not exist, or
that there is no natural numbers which cannot be the sum of four
integers square (because that would contradict some theorem you know).
But believing that God or the universe does not exist, would need a
reason of believing that such a notion are contradictory, when
actually those notion refer directly to some semantic (actually many
possible), so that it makes no sense to say that it does not or cannot
exist. Of course, if you define God by a white massive male living on
a cloud, then you can prove in the theory which assumes that massive
object cannot be on a cloud, that such a God cannot exist. To prove
that something does not exist require to be clear on what is assumed
to exist (number, or particles, or whatever), and what is that
something.
People who pretend to be "non believer", in the religious filed, are
people who usually believe in the second God of Aristotle theology,
the God "primary matter".
It is a religious belief, in the sense that they believe that the
"primary matter" existence has no need for an explanation (making it
often into a dogma), and they believe that all the rest will emerge
from the activity of that primary matter. Usually they believe also
that consciousness is explained by computer science. (But here they
meet big problems, which is probably why the most lucid on this go as
far as eliminating consciousness).
The activity of science is methodologically agnostic. Even theology,
when done scientifically, is neutral on the existence of any Gods,
including matter.
Some atheists are aware of this, but some atheists talk like if
science opposed religion, when applied science (like saying "yes" to a
doctor) require both science and religion.
Science requires religion, for the motivation. You need to believe in
the moon to send a rocket on it. You need to be believing in
something, that you don't know, to begin the research.
Religion requires science, for the sanity and for preventing believing
in inconsistent propositions.
For any machine M science and religion go hand in hand. religion
extend science, but does not contradict it, and if it contradict it,
then as Al Ghazali already insisted on, the religion needs the revision.
It is only when religion *becomes* politics that religion easily
depart from consistency (and get dangerous).
Note this key point, on which I should may be more insist:
For any machine M, the theology of the machine M is not a science. It
is in the part which extends science.
In the "comp religion", you need to extend science to say yes to the
doctor. What you do is a private affair between you and your shaman/
doctor if you have one. (Later, a posteriori, we can bet that the
brain already does that automatically all the times).
Yet the Löbian machine are "clever" enough to study the general
correct (arithmetically true) theology of the correct machine in
general. Indeed it will be the same as the one of very simple machine
(like RA+the induction axioms, i.e. PA). The more complex machine can
lift the theology of the simpler machine to itself, but that is at its
own risk and peril, for the reason that she cannot prove to be correct
(nor even consistent).
If you tend to believe in the plausibility of computationalism, you
have a criteria for detecting symptoms of bad faith. Bad faith will
use argument-per-authority. Those are argument per violence (verbal or
otherwise).
Now a question, near the theological trap (theology always flirt with
the border of consistency/inconsistency, and that is why it is the
science which needs the most rigor, in fact). The question is: is not
the existence of pain an argument of authority by Nature or God. Is
pain unconscious bad faith?
I think that with AUDA we got the qualia and the quanta, but the
difference between the good and the bad still escape the machine
theory, except perhaps in a form of bad faith.
Of course the bad and the good is also the most obvious for us (most
people will agree that a bath at 30° celsius feels better than at 4°
degree celcius), and it is also the one more easily to give functional
role: if being eaten was more satisfactory than eating, we might not
have evolved). If pain is unconscious bad faith, in some sense, nature
(with the Darwin theory) needs some bad faith, and the general
question is how much arithmetic needs bad faith to get a stable and
persistent first person plural physical reality? I don't know.
Bruno
--
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.
