On 26 Feb 2015, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived."
> Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible.
As much as a tampon factory needs a sackful of dead rats.
You were the guy citing a text saying that the bible is the most
potent force for atheism.
> Fro the greek, the existence of God is [...]
To hell with the no-nothing greeks.
> UDA answers this question in the following way:
And to hell with the Universal Dance Association.
Your argument have some punch, I concede that.
***
You know John, your stuck problem at step 3, eventually makes me think
that you might be right on one point: the discovery of the First
Person Indeterminacy *is* a major discovery. I should perhaps be less
modest on that.
I suspect you understood that once we cross step 3, there is no return
possible and you can't miss the reversal mind/matter.
The First Person Indeterminacy certainly deserves the acronym FPI.
It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that
case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given
(more than one times), it is an exercise for high school students, as
Kim explained once, using combinatorics, to show that the 1p
experiences are random.
Then by duplicating population of machines, we "entangle" the machine
states, so that they share linearly the computations, you get a notion
of first person plural, which can be shown to appear non deterministic
and non local, but again, without ever leaving the deterministic and
local realm.
Then, if we want to be able to get the difference between truth, and
the modalities (believable, knowable, observable, sensible), you need
just to interview the machine, with a technical shortcut provided by
Solovay theorem 1: the modal logic G, and its "guardian angel", a gift
offered by Solovay theorem 2: the modal logic G*. G give the 3p-self-
reference basic science, and G* gives the truth about that, notably
the one extending beyond the basic science of the self-referential
machine.
Yes, the FPI is so simple, and the UDA is so simple, that PA and other
Lôbian machine get it by themselves. The propositional part of the
arithmetically sound machine theology is given by scheme of theorems
in arithmetic, indeed decidable by their representations in G (the
intensional variants).
Why "theology"? It is a way to warn people that science, papers,
discourses, ... cannot guaranty you a correct substitution level, nor
even its existence. The jump needs some faith.
If not we make G asserting a statement from G* minus G: an
arithmetical blasphem!
I know you have said yes to a doctor not yet born, so I guess you
don't care too much on the substitution level, and it is your right to
do so,, but as a theoretician I need just to be clear and rigorous on
that point.
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.
