Yes On Jan 15, 2015 12:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/everything-list/topics> > Google > Groups > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview> > Topic digest > View all topics > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/everything-list/topics> > > - Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to > dialectics? <#14aeebc4ae562e69_group_thread_0> - 4 Updates > > Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to > dialectics? > <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/51af9e36dfef7411?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> > Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 05:40PM +0100 > > On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: > > > > Sure, why not, for you it works, but many also have their own > > definitions and doctrines… and there is the rub. Everyone is talking > > about god, but the word means different things to different people. > > Really? I know only atheists to refuse the definition given by Samiya. > > > > > > If we want to rigorously define the conceptual meaning of god then I > > believe it should be possible to use the language of math and logic > > to make a more compelling argument for science. > > With Samiya definition, you can already prove that a machine cannot > distinguish God from Arithmetical Truth. > (Actually, a machine cannot even distinguish God, or arithmetical > truth, with sufficiently big part of arithmetical truth). > > > > > seek to find a way to speak of this mystery that uses rigorous > > symbolic language of math and logic. Otherwise it is just a bloody > > (not so) merry go round…. And round, and round. > > I disagree. I think it is a good start. Then we can add assumption(s) > (like computationalism, or materialism, etc) and see what could look > like that God in those theories. We have less problem today, because > mathematical logic shows how to talk about non nameable thing, and > God, as a substantive used as a fuzzy name, is only a pointer. If we > drop the word ---, tomorrow, we might go round and round on "---". > > Theology *is* by definition the search for a theory of everything. > Today physics fails, as it cannot unify the quantum facts and the > gravitational facts, and actually does not address many other problem > like consciousness, afterlife, souls, etc. > > Bruno > > > > > > 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/ > Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 05:47PM +0100 > > On 14 Jan 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote: > > > is power" or "God is a bearded dude in the clouds" They are just > > instances of a simple formula: "I think X is really important and > > deserving of your adulation. So God is X" > > Not at all. When we say "God is money" we do a metaphor. No one would > defend the idea that money is the origin of the universe/consciousness. > > When we say God is the unknown reason of the universe/consciousness, > we provide a definition. > > > > > > > >> Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical > >> reality we find ourselves in now? > > > No. I don't "believe IN" anything. I entertain hypotheses. > > Good. But you don't always talk like that. Sometimes it looks like you > do believe that our origin is physical. > > Bruno > > > > > 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/ > Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 06:23PM +0100 > > On 14 Jan 2015, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: > > >> God exists, rather than being a true atheist who would "believe IN" > >> "no theistic god exists" > > > I don't believe any theistic God exists - and so I'm an a-theist. > > > Usually atheists believe that there is no theistic God. If you are > agnostic, then let us continue the research, and let us not decide in > advance the degree of theistic-ness of god. BTW, how would you define > "theistic". If it means "santa Klaus", I am atheist too, but consider > that trivial and uninteresting. No serious theologian believes in > Santa Klaus. And yes, many theologian are not serious, but this is due > to the contingent fact that people blasphemize all the time (i.e. use > God for personal power purpose (the most irreligious thing to do > according to *many* theologian and normally all scientist). > > Theology gives power. Fake theology gives fake power. The problem is > that fake power works better, in the short term, and needs much less > effort, because it needs only gullibility/lack of education and > training in logic, where the non fake theology asks for serious effort > and work. > > I have a question, thinking about you being an a-theist. Is the God of > Anselmus theistic? Does Gödel's formalization of Anselmus formalize a > theistic God? > > In fact, if you are "only" an agnostic atheist, then it seems even > more weird to me why you have vocabulary problems in the field of > theology. > > I have no problem using "toy theology" for what ideally arithmetically > sound finite creatures (machines, numbers) can eventually believe, and > intuit, and observe, about themselves and their possibilities. It is > then obviously interesting to compare this with what humans believes > about themselves. > > Bruno > > > > 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/ > Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: Jan 15 06:38PM +0100 > > On 15 Jan 2015, at 00:45, meekerdb wrote: > > > >> Having no beliefs is agnostic. > > > No, an agnostic not only doesn't know, but thinks it's impossible to > > know, per #5 below. > > Those are "or", and that meaning of agnostic is technical, and put out > of its context. That is because atheists want to include the > agnostics. I comply and distinguish the strong atheist (non agnostic) > from the weak atheism (can be agnostic). But I point that the > difference between string and weak atheism is far bigger tha between > string atheism and christianism (which for a mathematician is just > about the same main belief in Aristotle conception of reality). > > By allowing agnostic to be a form of atheism leads to trivializing the > term, and is very misleading on the meaning of strong atheism. > > Better to accept that science = agnosticism in all direction, be it > matter, god, equality between matter and god, or difference between > matter and god. We start from scratch using some general assumptions. > > The interesting question is not god exists or not. the interesting > question is "is the physical universe the reality, or is it an aspect > or mode of a deeper/simpler reality". > > Bruno > > > > > 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/ > Back to top <#14aeebc4ae562e69_digest_top> > You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this > group. You can change your settings on the group membership page > <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/everything-list/join> > . > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to [email protected]. > -- 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.
