On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:58, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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. As Kronecker said,
"Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist
Menschenwerk." At a gut level I think he wants to poke the eye of
some atheists who rejected his thesis. Otherwise he could easily
use "The One" or aperion or quintessence other theologically neutral
terms.
Yes. His idea is timeless anyway, so it couldn't really be a
temporal beginning. Maybe it should be "Logic" (and he could throw
in a homage to Leonard Nimoy)
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 and therefore whatever
satisfies its existence predicate is what exists.
Yes. I have to admit I like this idea because it's the only thing
I've ever come across that actually works on this basis (being
logically necessary). Otherwise the universe is just a brute fact -
which of course it may be.
I guess you mean the fact that we explain the phenomenological
existence of god, universe, consciousness, from x+ 0 = 0, etc.
x + 0, etc, are our new brute facts. Together with the
computationalist hope that comp is true, the doctor competent, and the
substitution level low enough, in case we practice.
Some can say, like John Clark, doctor, if you exist, I trust you do
your best.
I am aware that for non logician, it is not that easy to understand
that x + 0 = x has to be assumed, or equivalent. Formally, most logic
are very weak, you cannot prove the existence of 0 with them, still
less of a universal number. Now if you assume the S and K laws, then
you can prove that x + 0 = 0, accepting combinators definition of
numbers. For the S and K laws, or from those simple arithmetical
axiom; you can prove the existence of universal numbers, and of their
discourse about their multiple phenomenologies (the intensional
variant. A believer is a believer in such a theory, + the belief of
the induction axioms, which is what makes them obeying G and G*, when
self-referentially correct.
I use only the most known elementary, and not so elementary, theorem
from computer science and mathematical logic.
The key technical things is in the difference between Cantor diagonal
argument, tarski diagonal argument, Gödel diagonal argument, and, the
most important of all Kleene diagonal argument.
I will have to go, and as the number of mails seems infinite, I guess
I have an infinite time to comment them. The month of mars is tightly
scheduled. Thanks for patience.
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.
