2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
>
> On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it...
> then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic
> either, you're what is called a believer...
>
>
> No problem with this. Actually, it is because I am a believer that I am
> not afraid of the use of reason, free speech, critical thinking, ... in
> theology, and it is because I am a believer that I am really shocked by the
> way the humans misuse the natural animal's faith in some reality.
>
>
> Lao-tseu is totally right on this. The wise stay mute. Only the non
> believer can asserts answers.
>
Well, you said before it was the agnostic that were wise... but now that
you're not agnostic... it's the believer... seems more and more word
playing.
And believer like non-believer asserts things... and clearly you cannot
doubt god because you want to use the god word, so god == anything that
will let you use the word... so you're not agnostic and you assert thing
and therefore not wise... there must be a logical flow in this... (I think
it's god...).
>
> The same with machine: the propositional theology is given by G* minus G.
> It is the catalog of the solutions of
>
> []x -> ~x
>
> Those truth which goes without saying, and get awry when said, and which
> paves the road to hell with the good intentions.
>
> I am a believer. I would not do research if I was not a believer. But I am
> a scientist, and I know I can suggest only public theories and test them. I
> can't made public ontological commitment (consider this post as private!).
>
> Most strong-atheists are believers too, as most believe in things like
> Big-Bang, Energy, Wave, and they "blasphem" in the greek-machine
> theological sense (equivalent with asserting a proposition from G* minus G)
> when they invoke those beliefs' contents as beyond doubt, that is as "non
> hypotheses" or "obvious".
>
> With the general sense of God, we are all believers. It is quasi-trivial
> for the humans, ("quasi", it still involves consciousness and some
> reality), but it is not completely trivial to prove this for all ideally
> correct machines. You need incompleteness and the fact that (löbian)
> machines can justified their own incompleteness in the conditional way.
>
> I would like to add an explanation here, which is that the general
> theology is a science, not the application of a theology to oneself. To
> each machine M, ideally arithmetically sound, you can associate its proper
> theology
>
> G*(M) minus G(M)
>
> where G*(M) and G(M) is the interpretation of the logic G*, and G, in the
> machine turing-universal language.
> In particular, []A is interpreted by "the machine M asserts A", in his own
> language, for A some specific proposition.
>
> Then if the machine asserts any proposition of G*(M) minus G(M), the
> machine get inconsistent and can assert anything.
> But Löbian machine knows this, and actually, can justify why it needs to
> be like that in case they are correct. Their own theology is not speakable,
> but they can deduce the truth of them, and their mathematics, from
> assumption of self-correctness, keeping the interrogation mark and
> explaining that they do not pretend to prove or justify those beliefs,
> which are more like hope.
>
> So theology, among the sciences, has a special status: it *cannot* be
> applied normatively. Like a sacred text should be (!). It can inspire us,
> and it is hard (for me) to not find that discourse (G* minus G)
> tremendously interesting. It shows that the introspective machine find a
> transcendental reality in her head, but has to stay mute about it, or talk
> on it in a derived way, and insist that it is conditional, like insisting
> we make the computationalist hypothesis, and that it requires an authentic
> act of faith (the "yes" doctor).
>
> And this is valid for the other "proper" true but unprovable part of the
> hypostases, with the corresponding nuances (X1* minus X1, Z1* minus Z).
> Note that S4Grz1* = S4Grz1. The first person knowledge do confuse proof and
> truth, in her perspective. That knowledge implies a self which has no
> name/description: we don't know who we are, and we can know that if we
> introspect oneself deep enough. It might explain the distinction between
> the "little ego" and the "higher self" made by the mystics.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quentin
>
> 2015-01-21 19:30 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
>
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:40, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 1/20/2015 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>> The more I think about it, the more I doubt that these subjects were
>>>>> simply "abandoned" in an innocent fashion. The problem is that beliefs
>>>>> about fundamental reality are at the foundations of political power, and
>>>>> the powerful know this, even if only intuitively.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Read Craig A. James little book, "The Religion Virus" for a history of
>>> religion from that standpoint.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The term religion is too large for such analogy.
>>
>> In a recent article of the french journal "La Recherche" there is a paper
>> which shows that historians debunk Ernst Mach idea that science progressed
>> *against* christianity, and that on the contrary, the root of modern
>> science might relied in the idea that nature was a mechanism made by God. I
>> already knew the more obvious relation between computationalism and
>> christian's self-finiteness belief.
>>
>> With the greek One, religion is what science is for. The goal is going
>> near truth, the tool is science. The goal evolves as much as the tool in
>> the process.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, since always. That is why we are mucky to be in a place where
>>>> scientists have regained some freedom in some domain, but clearly not in
>>>> all (theology and human science are still not done with the scientific
>>>> attitude).
>>>>
>>>
>>> We're in a mucky place because a lot of theologians promote mucky
>>> religions. :-)
>>>
>>
>> And you can expect this will continue if we don't let theology going back
>> to academy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> When atheist politicians say that we must respect the Vatican, they
>>>>> are agreeing on some border of power. They are saying, ok we can't have
>>>>> absolute power but we can negotiate peace with the Vatican.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vatican and bishops love atheism, because atheists are their allies in
>>>> preventing seriousness in theological matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I went to a lecture by a theologian last night. He gave a
>>> definition of theism, the same as mine: Belief in a supernaturally powerful
>>> person who cares about human behavior and wants to be worshipped. And he
>>> went on to say that all serious theology is a-theistic.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No problem with that. Science by itself is agnostic, but as much about
>> primary matter than any reality, we can only try religion, and change of
>> religion, or change religion. A religion is a conception of reality, and it
>> is based on the belief that there is a reality, that we can share some
>> aspect of it, and discuss about the way to unify all the views and
>> reflexion we can have on it.
>>
>> Now, you frighten me a bit about which theologian you are listening too,
>> and I give you a tip, go back to the time theology was a science, that is
>> before +523 in occident (and of course, if you study the theologians since,
>> you will see many "saying sentences like above, but only in context of
>> being able to develop other interesting ideas: that is, not all modern
>> theologian believe in such naive theist god). But officially: the field is
>> sick (authorianistist) since +523 in Occident, and about the eleventh
>> century in Middle-East.
>>
>> Strong-atheism is a religion, and is dishonest when not saying so, as it
>> is the belief in a primary physical universe or matter, object of the laws
>> described in the book of physics.
>>
>> That might be true. We don't know. But we can know that this view is
>> problematical if we assume there is no magic in the brain or in matter.
>>
>> It is nice because it illustrates the existence of a realm, a simple one
>> conceptually (a tiny part of arithmetic), where the laws of physics
>> originate.
>>
>> The difficulty to accept this is similar with the difficulty some
>> accepted evolution. Perhaps.
>>
>> Read history of science. Humans pervert science all the time, for short
>> run purpose, or for power purpose. For all of them we must distinguish the
>> object of study from the humans theories which can always be wrong, if not
>> escape the well guided practice (laic academy, laic school, agnostic
>> presentations, encouragement of doubting, even mocking, *all* authorities,
>> etc.).
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
