On 02 Mar 2016, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:\
> Your opinion about Plato and Aristotle seems based on your
not studying it only. You seem to ignore the history of science.
You seem to ignore the fact that the history of science did not
stop in 400 BC; I'm pretty sure there have been some developments
since that time.
Yes, a terrible thing, the science theology has been given to the con-
man. Science did stop, or at least get mutilated and lost its head.
> Arithmetical truth plays the role of God
Arithmetical truth is not a person,
That is an open question.
but God is a person,
Not in all theology. It is not in Chinese theology. It is not entirely
true in greek theology, although there a god can have simultaneously
non personal and personal aspect.
Anyway, I have given the definition, let us not be discuss vocabulary,
and call God "glass-of-beer" if it better suit you: by definition a
glass-of-beer is the creator (in the large non necessarily personal
sense) of whatever is real.
a fictitious person but a person nevertheless. Harry Potter is a
fictitious person too and that's why Harry is not synonymous with
arithmetical truth either.
Glad to hear Arithmetical Truth is no fictitious. But Arithmetical
truth is the set of all true arithmetical sentences, and you can
personalize it by identify God, I mean your glass-of-beer, as an
entity which believe (and thus know) all those sentences. Then you can
defer for further discussion if the glass-of-beer as some will (which
I doubt).
> Plato's references to myth are related with parables to
explain notion to the people of its time.
But yet you believe that when Einstein talked about "God" it was
different, you think he wasn't using a parable to explain
something.
Einstein made clear when he use the good lord as a parable and when it
is not. See the book by Jammer. It explains why God was against
atheists (which at that time was what we call non-agnostic atheists
today). Einstein refer to the mystical sight of wonder in front of the
fact that the universe is comprehensible. Today we have progressed,
and we know that if we are machine Einstein's God (a 100% intelligible
Aristotelian reality) does not exist, but the insight of Einstein
remains correct for the "new" God (arithmetical reality), and in that
case it is conditionally justify by the incompleteness theorem. But
being refuted is the honor of the scientist. It also vindicate Gödel's
remark to Einstein that theology is a science.
>> everybody agrees that God is a intelligent conscious PERSON,
> Not at all. Einstein would have disagree, and many believers
can disagree with this, even among jews and christians and muslims.
Do you really think a devote Jew Christian or Muslim would
agree with Einstein when he said:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his
creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in
ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an
individual that survives his physical death"
No, but it is well know that devotees are not scientists. Greek
theologian have no problem which such idea. Why do non agnostic
atheists take so much time to defend devotees and fairy tales in the
field? Answer: because they are not agnostic: they know something and
invoke it when they do science, making that science invalid.
Or:
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is
a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility"
Or:
"it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Or:
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even
naive."
Or:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death."
Or:
"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe
at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate
senses to appreciate it.
"
You make my points.
> Do you agree or not with the axiom: God = whatever
without which there would be nothing.
Not. If I did agree with that then whenever I talk to 99.9% of the
people on this planet I'd have to invent a new word when I wanted to
refer to a conscious intelligent PERSON who created the universe.
Confirming again you defend the God of the theory due to con-man.
We do science. We keep the words, and change the theories. We did not
say "Earth do not exist" when we discover that Earth is flat. It is
the same in theology: if we get evidence that the creator of
everything is not a person, let it be.
>> or at least everybody agrees except for those who are
willing to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.
> In science we don't make vocabulary discussion.
Baloney. Two people can't discuss any subject if they can't even
agree on what language to use;
Well, here you show that you don't know what science is. In the semi-
axiomatic approach, we only agree on some principle, and here I use
the original definition.
and if I and 99.9% of the people on the planet think a word means a
conscious intelligent PERSON but you would prefer it to mean a vague
grey blob then confusion is guaranteed.
Not among scientists. And not with the many christians, jews, muslims,
buddhist, hinduists I have discussed with. Only with TV-evangelist and
the most con of the con-man, which I don't even think believe on what
they say, but just want money.
But of course, if your ideas are illogical then confusion is your
ally when you communicate.
Read the theology of Proclus, and stop defending the use of the words
of those who have put the thology, born as science, out of science.
You continue to be-have as more catholic than the Pope. Indeed even
the pope (Jean-Paul 2) has officially decided that scared text should
not be taken literally. catholick have made more progress toward rigor
in theology than protestant, nowadays.
> Call it glass-of-beer if your prefer,
I would greatly prefer to call it "a glass of beer" but I know you
would never agree in a million years because you've fallen in love
with the word "God" even though you've forgotten what the word
means.
Not at all. I use God in this list only in an answer to someone using
God in the question. You will not find the word "god" in my main
papers. Plotinus called it ONE, but in some place, he can call it "the
father", but he insist that all names are wrong, as it is beyond all
words. All mystics says the same thing here, and even most traditional
religion insists (but is not applied by the con-man) on this. Cantor
discussed his theory of the transfinite with some important member of
the catholic clergy to be sure he could name infinities in math, but
was reassured by the fact that even in his theory the class of all
infinities is not nameable, a fact confirmed in theories like ZF (but
not NF, note).
> that would change nothing
Calling it a glass of beer would make things MUCH clearer because
nobody would confuse a glass of beer with a person.
but might infer it is not a person, which is still an open problem. No
name is good, and it is better to use the namle most use, like God,
which is sued by philosopher discussing the notion, and by comparative
theololgy, like in the book by Aldous Huxley.
But you would never agree to such a change because clarity of
thought does not aid your side of the argument, and besides you love
the noise your mouth makes when it makes a "God" sound too much.
False, I use it only in this list.
> this confirming for the 56 times that you defend the
christian theology.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious,
never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was
12.
You can say this a million times, and it will not change the fact that
you are just confirming: "don't change the definition of the con-man
because I have decided to defend them more than even the Pope". You
are a more fundamentalist christian than the Pope. Proof: this post.
> You defend with all your force the theology of the
fundamentalist christians.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious,
never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was
12.
Acting like a bot makes this even clearer.
>>>> as I've said over and over and over and over,
matter or may Not be primary but it is certainly needed for
intelligence.
>>> That is ambiguous at the extreme.
>> Which word didn't you understand?
> "needed"
In addition the integer 3 *needs* the integer 2 to produce
the integer 5; and in every single instances ever recorded
addition *needs* matter that obeys the laws of physics to perform a
calculation.
Only to make a material calculation. Here to talk already like if
matter is primary, so that only physical calculation is real, and
arithmetical calculation is not. But RA is Turing universal. All
computations are realized in RA, indeed, in all possible manner,
emulated by any universal number.
You are again using "matter" like if we need to postulate matter for
having a computation, but that is false. We need appearance of matter
to have appearance of computations in our physical neighborhood, but
with Mechanism, that is already proved by the PA emulated by RA.
>>> 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.
>> What does that have to do with the primacy of matter?
> If matter is primary, computationalism is false,
BULLSHIT. Maybe matter is primary and maybe it's secondary
but whatever it is if you want to make a computation you're going to
need matter.
That is simply wrong, read Church (not Turing because he use a machine
which look physical, for purely pedagogical reason, and he made clear
that his concept is equivalent with Church).
Consciousness needs matter, in the sense that consciousness implies
the appearance of matter, but computations needs not even those
appearance; they exist like the prime number exists, or like the
relation "is-bigger-than" exists. It exists in the sense of term or
pseudo-term used by Boolos in its two books. Computation has nothing
to do with physical, except that once we have the notion of
computation, some hypothesis in physics suggests that they can be
locally implemented in physical sub-system.
> and you would not survive at all if the unknown doctor offer
you a digital brain.
Why? Regardless of whether they're primary or not one thing
we know for sure is that the Hydrogen atoms in my body do NOT have
my name scratched on them.
If digital mechanism is false, you will not survive with a digital
brain, by definition.
> If computationalism is true, you survive no matter what,
You will survive if somewhere in the universe
Which universe? The arithmetical reality, the apparant physical
universe, or a primary physical universe?
I ask because after some recent progress you just regress again. Non
primary matter is needed logical for consciousness, as a consequence
of the UDA, but no need of the UDA to define computation (of course)
and so no need at all of matter, neither primary, nor apparent, to
define computations and show that RA is already Turing-complete.
there is a chunk of matter that is organized in such as way that it
behaves in a Brunomarchalian way, and if there isn't then you
won't; and it makes no difference if that matter is primary or not.
Indeed, assuming mechanism. That's my point, and that is why even just
at step seven most understand why and how physics is reduced to
arithmetic in that computationalist (mechanist) frame.
> but by using your code without protection, you augment the
risk that your code go into bad hands
If you're right then your code will definitely go into bad hands,
and it will definitely go into good hands too.
That is not reassuring.
>> A Turing machine needs matter not just to think but to do
ANYTHING
> No, that is the point where you contradict all textbook in
theoretical computer science.
No textbook in theoretical computer science can make one
single calculation.
Indeed, but no textbook realize any arithmetical truth. The
computation is in the intended models of the theory, not in the
syntactical description of the theory, which is what you find in book.
You confuse syntact and semantic.
That's why INTEL makes chips and not textbook in theoretical
computer science.
because they are interested in the physical implementation of
computation, but we are not as we are interested in fundamental
science and why we need to assume.
> Matter (primary or not) is not part of the definition
A definition can not make one single calculation.
You just miss the point. The fact that the definition cannot do a
computation does not anetial that the object matter of the definition
can.
You would tell Einstein that his theory is stupid because we cannot do
energy with a formula like E=mc^2, because formula cannot do anything.
Again, you confuse what is pointed to by formula and the formula
itself. You do that very often: it is realyy the confusion between
"2+2=4" and the fact that 2 + 2 is equal to 4.
That's why INTEL makes chips and not definitions.
false, as I just explained above.
> any sigma_1 complete structure is enough to implement a
computation.
Then INTEL is foolish to make chips when they should be making
sigma_1 complete structures. You could make a fortune competing
against such a foolish company.
If ideas were patented, Church, Post, Kleene would get a large part of
the money made by INTEL, which has done the phsyical implementation of
their non physical theory.
> (it is just not a physical implementation).
And Catholics say bread and wine is *really* the body and blood of
Jesus Christ it's just not a physical implementation. And Santa
Claus lives at the north pole and the only reason arctic expeditions
haven't found him there is that Santa lacks a physical
implementation. And if that isn't a load of colossal horseshit what
is?
And you still can't explain WHY it isn't a physical implementation!
I don't find sense at all here.
If matter that obeys the laws of physics isn't the missing
ingredient then what is??
You don't need matter to implement computations in RA. There is no
missing ingredient at all. Matter will be an internal appearance, a
mode of self-reference, itself defined in PA, emulated in RA.
> And please: RA is not God! It is the base theory. I could
have taken combinators and the Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) axioms only.
OK, so the axioms Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) are God.
You don't understand, no theories at all is God. You really know
nothing in mathematical logic and computer science. You confuse a
theory and its semantic (model) again and again ...
But I'm not sure everybody in Jerusalem or Baghdad or Atlanta
would agree.
Authoritative arguments won't help, especially if you refer to
anything in the theology done after the stealing of a science by
politics.
Just continue to do that, as this will help later to understand the
kind of bigot atheists science is still confront with in 2016.
You so totally confriming that non-agnostic atheism is fundamentalist
bigotry.
> It uses the Aristotelian hypothesis by default, except in the
coffee room, where you can realize that most take Aristotle for
granted, and get shocked with the idea that Aristotle ontological
commitment can be doubted. And if you can doubt Aristotle's
ontology, Plato is back, because if you have not Aristotle, you have
Plato [...] Plato intuits already the shadow of machine's
theology, the transcendental aspect of such a god, its unameability,
then Plotinus makes it NOT conscious,
Don't you ever get tired of blabbing about those ancient Greek
imbeciles?
Insult?
Thanks, it means you lost the debate.
Bruno
> research in theology has been forbidden since 1500 years.
Forget 1500 years, there has NEVER been any research in theology
because theology has no field of study.
> the (strong, non-agnostic) atheists help so much the
clerics by participating in the mocking of the idea to come back to
the scientific attitude in that domain. They betray that there are
still christians.
Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> Anyway, to confuse theology with christian theology
One of us is confused that's for damn sure.
> Only strong atheists and fundamentalist christians act in
this way.
Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>> I see no reason to doubt that matter is needed for
intelligence.
> "needed" in which sense?
In which sense do you mean "which sense"?
> What is your theory.
After 4 or 5 hundred posts the man asks "what is your theory?"!
> Clarify this point please.
I'll be glad to as soon as you clarify the meaning of "this".
>> My hunch is matter is primary but I could be wrong.
> Good, it means you doubt between Plato's conception of
reality and Aristotle's conception of reality.
But I don't doubt that both Plato and Aristotle were imbeciles.
>> And if Darwin was right and Evolution produced me then
intelligent behavior and consciousness must be linked.
> No problem with this.
Then I'm right and you're wrong.
> With my large semi-axiomatic definition of intelligence and
consciousness, (keeping in mind, though, my distinction between
intelligence and competence), to distinguish at this stage
intelligence and consciousness would be a 1004 fallacy.
I have no idea what your silly homemade jargon "1004 fallacy
" means and I don't what to know because whatever it means it's
got to be dumb. It's easy to distinguish between intelligence and
non-intelligence but it's impossible to directly distinguish between
consciousness and non-consciousness in anybody but oneself.
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 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.
