On 14 Jan 2015, at 08:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2015 11:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:29 PM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:04 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>> O'Brien knew that who controls language controls thought. So
peace is war. Atheism is Christianity. And "God" is whatever you
want it to mean.
> Bruno has a specific definition of God,
He says he does, but when you probe a little deeper you find that
he does not. In fact he has specifically said and I quote " This is
useful to realize that the question "is god a person or a thing" is
an open problem.". So when Bruno talks about "God" he quite
literately and by his own admission doesn't know what he's talking
about.
So I take it number theorists have no idea what they're talking
about either, because the Goldbach conjecture is still an open
problem in their field.
Number theorists have a precise definition of the Goldbach
conjecture and they have some axioms and rules of inference. So
their uncertainty is mainly whether one leads to the other.
However, it might turn out that they don't know what they're talking
about; it might turn out that the Goldbach conjecture is undecidable
and that it can be added as an axiom or it's negation can be added
as an axiom.
Goldbach conjecture is Pi_1, so if false, it is refutable. The
negation of Goldbach (NGC) is Sigma_1 and thus semi-decidable. So if
NGC is true, it can be proved: just by showing the counter-example.
(If an even number is not the sum of two primes, this can be verified
in a finite time, and you cannot add the negation of GC as a new
axioms, without being led to an inconsistency).
But God is different: I defined it by the reality at the origin of
consciousness and matter, or consciousness and matter appearances.
You can define God by what exists when you stop believing in primary
matter. For machine, reality or truth is theological in the sense that
the machine can believe in it, but cannot justify its existence, nor
can the machine give a description of what it is, only approximations,
each differing fundamentally from what it can be. But if you don't
like the term "god", use any vague term you want. Don't use a precise
term, like physical reality, or arithmetical reality, because that
would be part of a possible answer that we look for. I define God by
the thing at the origin of matter and consciousness, and then
*assuming comp* I show that the arithmetical reality play that role,
and is the only thing capable of playing that role, but at the start,
I was open that it might be a physical universe: or even a abramanic
god, but this does not work, and so we derive God from our assumption
of computationalism.
To be sure, there is still room for a more abramanic-like notion of
God in computationalism, but then we can show that no machine could
ever distinguish it from the arithmetical truth (and so I drop this
nuance, at this stage).
The advantage of using that general definition of God, is that we can
compare the theology of the (ideally correct) machine with all human
theologies. For example, the theology of the atheists, with 0 personal
god, and one impersonal God (the material universe), just does not
work. At the opposite, the God of the Parmenides, the atemporal ONE,
seems quite close to the ONE of the machine (arithmetical truth). That
is another advantage of terms like god and theology, it shows that the
greeks and Indian developed an intuition comparable to the intuition
that the self-observing machine develops. it shows that greek theology
was closer to what science teach us today than we might have thought.
With some scientists, I got early problem, not by using God, but just
by using "mind", or "consciousness" or even "artificial intelligence",
or "computer" (sic) or "quantum" (re-sic).
I really don't understand why you have a problem with defining God by
the whatever is at the logical/causal origin of all possible beliefs
and knowledge (including matter and consciousness).
It is the only way to be as much neutral as possible at the start on
all religions (including the belief in matter). Then we use reason and
hypotheses only, so we don't need to even address the question of the
fairy tales: in science we don't take historical witnessing as valid
in physical and metaphysical explanations. We accept only clear
theories with clear means of testing them (available or not with
current theology: string theory and comp are testable in that sense).
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
