On 09 Dec 2014, at 16:30, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>> At one time the human race was knowledgeable enough to
construct the Antikythera Mechanism, but 200 years after it was made
Jesus was born and started a major world religion, and 630 years
after Jesus Mohamed was born and started another major world
religious; and by the time Mohamed died we'd lost over 90% of our
smarts. Actually there is some truth in what you say, certainly
during Mohamed's lifetime nobody on the planet knew how to make
something like the Antikythera Mechanism, a device that was made
nearly a thousand years before.
>>>> I said it before I'll sat it again, religion makes people stupid.
>>> Not religion, but the imposition of a religion to others
>> Until just a couple of centuries ago the 2 things were virtually
synonymous, and even today it remains true for hundreds of millions
of people, especially in the Islamic world.
> Yes, but the same for science.
Oh yes science is just as intolerant as religion,
It was indeed, 100% when science was equated to the Bible.
Today, both atheists scientists and ecclesiastic authorities are
intolerant with respect to come back to theology in that spirit.
throughout the centuries many thousands have been burned to death at
the stake for denying that the logarithm of 42 is 1.6232492904.
Today, they know that burning to death advertize the idea, so the
method are more smooth. Just ignorance, or defamation, and the usual
deny of the evidences.
The point is that we should not separate science from religion. We can
make hypothesis and reason about the nature of matter, soul, divine,
etc. I illustrate it with the computationalist hypothesis, which
provides mathematical tools: computer science and mathematical logic.
I translated, in that frame, the mind-body problem into the problem of
deriving the "persistent illusion of matter" in arithmetic.
And don't forget the bloody wars fought between the base 10
adherents and the natural logarithm faithful.
>> Let me see if I understand you correctly, you believe I have not
spent enough time refuting your monumentally silly "argument" that
atheist is just a slight variation of Christianity. Did I get that
right
> Yes. Just saying "silly" is not an argument.
The word "silly" is the only argument the "atheism is just a slight
variation of Christianity" idea deserves.
You don't quote my argument, and you don't provide any argument.
It is just plain obvious that by keeping theology out of rationalism,
we get irrational theology continuing to ravage the streets.
I remind you that theology might not be the one from a "revelation",
although this does not imply logically that the "revelations" are 100%
wrong, either.
I gave you my definition of what is the theology of the machine M, it
is technical. Just study the work.
> most strong atheists believe in primary matter in a dogmatic way.
And the only comment the above deserves is "gibberish".
That comment does not help.
I don't even see what you are defending, John, but in this list we
search for a theory of everything, and the initial consensus was in
the favor for the quantum Many-Worlds or some generalization of it.
Computationalism does imply a generalization of Everett on the
sigma_1 arithmetical reality, and mathematical logic shows how self-
referential machines, emulated in that arithmetical reality comes to
believe on bigger set of sentences than the one they can justify from
their sharable beliefs. The notion of truth, behave in a manner
analog to the One of the neoplatonist. Then even a plotinian sort of
matter admits an account, formally described, and with transparent
interpretation in arithmetic, and its logic can be compared to the
formal approach in quantum mechanics.
But you need to understand that no universal machine can know in any
direct way which universal machine run it. It is a "modern" view of
the dream argument, and a simple consequence, assuming
computationalism, of the invariance of consciousness for digital brain
substitution.
You can define the God of PA in ZF. You can define the God of ZF in ZF
+ Kappa. You can see the theory of the large cardinals as abstract
theology. Recursion theory makes it more concrete and relates it to
what ideal machine can actually justify and hope/bet. Artificial
intelligence is engineering of all this, but the theory explains that
in practice it is more like isolating a creative germ than by building
something that we can understand (theoretical artificial intelligence
share with theology its necessary non constructive aspects, but that's
what classical logic is for).
My work is in in theoretical computer science, but if it applies to
us, if we bet on the digital surgeon, that is admits the
computationalist hypothesis.
UDA is only AUDA made simple. I mean you can see it this way. But it
would be simpler to admit you did understood step 3, and tell us your
opinion on step 4 (and you did once, actually), so tell us about step
5 and 6.
To use physics to make prediction of first person experience,
computationalism shows that we need a strong limitation principle (or
a strong induction axiom, it is the same thing). We almost need to
postulate the unicity of the universe, or of a multiverse, etc.
Computationalism makes the use of that principle into a begging God-of-
gap type of explanation, and asks for a more subtle mind-body
relationship.
Bruno
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.
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.
