On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of
agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that
everyone else is wrong.
Hmm...
Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps
you'll understand me.
As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By
"worst" I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense
that it is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people
automatically doubting your message.
And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason.
Thanks! :)
Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level) to
survive the unreasonable (arithmetical) reality, and to maximize
partial relative control.
Unfortunately "reason" gives the ability to lie and manipulate the
others at different levels.
Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full
of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your
infinitely many relatively consistent continuations.
Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an
observer (a first person plural), a "god" (an independent simple but
deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with
enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them.
The lexicon is
p truth God
[]p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*)
[]p & p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz)
[]p & <>t intelligible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1,
Z1*)
[]p & sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*)
You need to study some math, to see that this give eight quite
different view the universal machines develop on themselves. It
provides a universal person, with a soul, consistent extensions,
beliefs, and some proximity (or not) to God (which is the "ultimate"
semantic that the machine cannot entirely figure out by herself (hence
the faith).
If you want to convince me, you have to first convince the universal
person associated to the Löbian machine, I'm afraid.
I am not pretending that the machine theology applies to us, but it is
a good etalon to compare the theologies/religions/reality-conceptions.
The problem is that we have to backtrack to Plato, where what we see
is only the border of something, that we can't see, but yet can intuit
and talk about (a bit like mathematics or music)
Bruno
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
