On 28 Feb 2016, at 03:32, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Theology remains stupid because it's the study of nothing,
> It is the science of God. If your theory says there is no God,
that is still a theology,
If your field of study is the fact that 2+2 =5 and I show the 2+2 is
not equal to 5 then what more is there to say about your field of
study?
>In the theology of Plato [....]
TO HELL WITH THEOLOGY AND TO HELL WITH PLATO!
> your perpetual use of primary matter
TO HELL WITH PRIMARY MATTER!
You can sum up Plato by "to hell with primary matter", so you
contradict yourself.
> confirms that you seem to believe in Aristotle god:
TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH GOD!
OK, nice, again this is equivalent, in your language, with "to hell
with primary matter", but of course contradicts again "to hell with
Plato".
Plato is just the doubt of primary matter. Aristotle is just the quick
coming back to primary matter.
> With the definition of god of the greek, indian, chinese,
there is no doubt that everybody believe in God.
Yes, even I believe that grey vague blobs that do nothing of
importance exist.
Your usual trick: changing the definition.
I thought we did define God by the origin of all things, the creator,
or the reason of reality or everything real, including you BTW, and
you did provide evidence that you consider you as important (which
might be your motivation for immortality, also).
God is the nickname of the primary reality from which all others will
be derived. It is a way to not decide in advance if it what we see (a
physical universe) or something else (like the arithmetical reality
for the (neo)pythgoreans).
Of course we don't know if such a god exists, but it is the faith of
the rationalist to get the best possible theory of that primary reality.
> The interesting question is not if God exists or not, but
what is the nature of God:
That's easy, God is a grey vague blob that probably doesn't exist
and would make no difference even if He did because He does nothing.
If God exists the universe doesn't need Him.
But with the definition of God, on which 99,9% agree: if God did not
exist, nothing would exist.
Of course by changing the definition you can make a good pun.
>> Name one time I invoked "primitive matter" in my
arguments that intelligence needs matter. ONE TIME!
> But then why do you disagree with anything I said,
I've disagreed when you said matter is not needed for intelligence,
I made clear I was talking on Primary Matter.
but as I've said over and over and over and over, matter or may
mot be primary but it is certainly needed for intelligence.
That is ambiguous at the extreme.
> given that all what I say is that the notion of primary
matter is epistemologically contradictory
I don't care if that matter is primary or not.
My point in this thread was that I consider dangerous to say "yes" to
an unknown doctor of the future, and that it was vain if the goal was
immortality.
It seems to me that you did use the idea that some matter was needed
to be assumed for an implementation of the relevant program could "be
conscious". My answer was that it was needed only for being conscious
relatively to our normal (physical) worlds/computations, but that
elementary arithmetic was enough for the normal computation continuing
the dying process (in that case).
If you were not assuming implicitly that your notion of matter was
primary, your argument would not have gone through.
You might have change your mind since, but then indeed, our
conversation can be closed.
I'd better repeat that because apparently you're a little hard of
hearing: I DON'T CARE IF MATTER IS PRIMARY OR NOT. Should I say it
again?
So please try to stop using argument that a Turing machine needs
matter to be thinking, because it needs only non primary matter. I did
show that arithmetic
1) has to provide it if mechanism is correct (by the UDA(*))
2) gives serious clues that such no primary matter, which here is only
a mode of self-reference relative to sigma_1 sentences (AUDA(*)),
obeys quantum logic and describes alternate sets of computations.
Something explaining, and being retrospectively confirmed by quantum
mechanics without wave packet reduction (which is the reason of this
list: the appreciation of Everett).
UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument)
AUDA (Arithmetic Universal Dovetailer Argument)
In the sane04 paper, it is the section 1 and 2.
we are in the paradigm of Aristotle theology.
Speak for yourself.
That is a bit unfair. Given that I show that mechanism, both
intuitively and formally, contradict Aristotle, and that is shocking
only for bigot Aristotelians.
> Only professional theologian knowing Plato
Given the fact that there is no knowledge there for a theologian to
know I don't see how a knowledgeable theologian differs from a
ignorant theologian. And there is no way any ancient Greek could be
of the slightest help is solving modern scientific or mathematical
or philosophical problems.
That's because you confuse, or were confusing, science with Aristotle
theology. By not caring on the abyssal difference between matter and
primary matter, you avoid the problem of what we need to assume
minimally in the theory of everything. Computationalism is based on
the notions of computations and require Church thesis to get a
mathematical definition, and it can be shown that we cannot deduce the
existence of a universal system without assuming at least one. Very
elementary arithmetic is enough.
The greek theology has given both physics (mainly by more or less
implicit aristotelians) and mathematics.
And I gave you a reference on a books which shows that even the modern
mathematical logic is born from motivation in neoplatonist theology,
including to take distance with dogma, and elevate the rigor in the
reasoning.
Unfortunately, in the professionalization process of mathematics, the
mathematicians and the mathematical logicians took some distance with
that philosophical and theological motivation. That was indeed good
for the mathematical sciences, no doubt, but that was bad for the
process of professionalization of non confessional theology, that is
"greek" theology. There is no dogma nor revelation in the public greek
theology.
> science has not decided between Plato and Aristotle
Yes it has, science decided about 400 years ago that both are
irrelevant.
Irrelevant with respect to what?
Fundamental science is the search of what is and what is not.
The current paradigm is Aristotelian. Most people believe that there
is a physical universe, and the weak materialist conceives it as
primary. Even most religious people believe it to be quasi-primary, up
to some creation by some god.
And a modern reader interested in philosophy would do much better
studying Einstein or Darwin.
Einstein is not bad in religion, and was at least aware that his
aristotelianism was religious, although with an impersonal god. But
Gödel was even more serious on this and open to the idea that
theology comes back in science.
> The epistemological existence of the appearance of matter is
a consequence of arithmetic.
Even if you're right about that it wouldn't change the fact that
matter is required for intelligence.
Yes, that is exactly what is proved, and illustrated, with the non
primary matter, which is only a first person plural sharable mode of
the universal Turing machines or numbers.
And I don't know that you're right, there is at least as
much evidence that you've got it backwards and matter implies the
existence of arithmetic;
They are bounded together in the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality. From
inside, it looks like much bigger than the sigma_1 reality.
The physical is basically the bound of the sigma_1 arithmetical
reality as seen from inside arithmetic by the universal numbers.
> some mathematical realism independent of any language or
formal system used to described it.
Why mathematical realism? Mathematics is a language just
as English is, so you could just as easily call it English
realism.
There is a mathematical language and an english language. But the
realism is not about the language but on the theories written in the
languages.
The sentence "the boson exists" exists, independently of the existence
of the boson in the physical reality.
Likewise the sentence "2+2=4" exists in arithmetic independently of
being true or false in the arithmetical reality.
Once you agree that matter might not be primary, you have to be open
to other primary axioms. We have to assume something, and the beauty
of computationalism is that we do not need more than to assume the
natural numbers and the axioms of succession, addition and
multiplication. I put already the induction axioms in the epistemology
of some beings existing by the succession, addition and multiplication
axioms only.
> we can no more postulate a primary physical reality,
But I can postulate the in your next post you will continue to drone
on about how matter is not primary even though it has nothing to do
with matter being needed for intelligence.
As I said, I did this because you did use implicitly primary matter to
refute one of my point in the thread. If you agree that matter might
not be primary, then the point you made is refuted at the start.
You can no more say that pure arithmetic can't generate consciousness
by invoking the money success of physical computer corporation,
because in the arithmetical reality too consciousness needs the
appearance of matter to develop and differentiate, and make money by
selling physical computers. But they are only first person sharable
invariant Turing Number's observable.
Bruno
John 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
