On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not
just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in
set theory or doesn't believe it is basis enough.
Yes. There is only one arithmetic of natural numbers on which everyone
agree. ZF is a nice theory, but there are many different
interpretations, and worst, many very different theories of set. We do
have a quasi communicable notion of standard model for arithmetic, but
not for set.
Also, the quantified qG and qG*, and thus their intensional variants,
are not immune of Quine Barcan-Marcus critics of predicate modal
logic, unlike the qG and qG* of arithmetic.
Nobody really believe in set theory. It is the Fortran of formal
mathematics, if you want. yet, quite useful for handling little set
naively, and quite useful to climb the more possible on the
transfinite. But those are in the "meta" of computer science.
As Kronecker said, "Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
Übrige ist Menschenwerk."
Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is
"Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlwerk."
Hmm, what is the plural of Zahl in german ...
At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of some atheists who
rejected his thesis.
Without reading it, and just because it contained the term
"consciousness".
Otherwise he could easily use "The One" or aperion or quintessence
other theologically neutral terms.
People would miss the point that computationalism is not theologically
neutral at all.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if
there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top
of the thread - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It
just changes it to "Why is there a creator?"
He thinks arithmetic is logically necessary
I guess this is a typo. I insist all the time that since the failure
of logicism, arithmetic is NOT logically necessary. If it was, I would
not need to add the arithmetical axioms to the theory. Logic would be
the theory, but that is not enough. I make clear that I assume x + 0 =
0, etc.
and therefore whatever satisfies its existence predicate is what
exists.
There is no existence predicate.
Brent
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
--- Ambrose Bierce
That is logic. yes. But the comp TOE is not logic, which is only a
tool. The TOE is arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent.
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 [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.
