On 20 Jan 2015, at 23:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> I use God in the sense of the platonist, who introduced the field
of inquiry "theology".
Not that it matters much what some guy who lived 2500 years ago
thought but Plato didn't believe in God he believed in The Gods,
more specifically he believed in something he called "Forms", like
Gods they were perfect and eternal, but unlike Gods they were not
alive and didn't move or think.
They discussed this a lot, and the Parmenides of Plato introduces the
ONE above the Forms, which will be at the base of neoplatonism. The
role of the ONE with computationalism is well captured by the notion
of arithmetical truth, and then the forms are given by a part of the
arithmetical truth with the choice and fixing of one universal number
(or better: löbian), which will be denoted by some Turing complete
predicate (the one corresponding to []A).
> In all case God is by definition the origin of things.
Then "God" could be stupider than the stupidest person you ever met,
be less conscious than a earthworm, and have less effect on your day
to day life than your pet hamster. Kind of a pathetic thing to
confer the lofty title of "God" on don't you think.
It is Reality, having in mind that it might not be the physical
reality. Yes, it can be stupid, but that is an open problem. After
all, it knows what all universal machine can ever know.
> It can be related with the god of the philosophers.
The God of the philosophers has had no effect on world history or on
current events and is so flabby fuzzy and general as to be utterly
useless. The God as a person idea has had a enormous and enormously
destructive impact on world history and current events
Without a thorough justification, I doubt this. The paper I mentioned
in the journal "La Recherche" shows work done by non christian
historians explaining the role of the christian God in the origin of
many scientific idea at the origin of the modern science. Likewise,
the God of the philosophers might have played a similar role during
the enlightenment period.
>> And I still don't understand what you mean by "spiritual
reality" and "physical reality" and the examples you gave don't
have any logical consistency as far as I can tell.
> ?
!
>> It is not clear if mathematics is the root of physics or physics
is the root of mathematics.
> Because you stop at step 3
Because you make blunder at step 3.
We have debunked that idea.
> You would be able to understand that computationalism makes
physical reality an aspect of the arithmetical reality. That is the
point of the UDA,
You forget IHA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uda
> The theory of everything is Robinson Arithmetic (RA).
That cannot be because induction is something and unlike Peano
Arithmetic Robinson has nothing to say about induction.
You confuse levels. I need only Turing completeness for the ontology,
and RA is already Turing complete. Induction is needed only to confer
the cognitive ability to the machine to know being universal. And RA
can prove and emulate the Löbian machine. You don't need induction at
the base level to prove the existence of machines having the induction
powers.
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.
