On 13 Dec 2016, at 20:20, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/13/2016 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2016, at 19:36, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/12/2016 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the religionist, trying to keep their comfort and influence,
keep fuzzing up the target and spreading it out because it's
center keeps getting hit by facts.
Atheism is either agnostic, or is a religion: an ontological
commitment in something we have no evidence to explain away a
technical problem. The belief in 0 personal god together with the
belief in one impersonal God, (Primary matter) are religious
commitment, with the large sense of God.
"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism is a
religion like OFF is a TV channel. Atheism is a religion like an
empty lot is a building..."
--- George Carlin
Correct for agnostic atheism.
False for the atheists who believe that there is no God (the
gnostic atheists).
That depends on what you mean by "God". As I've pointed out at
length, language is defined by usage
Not when we do science. We just make clear what we are talking about.
In our case it Plato's conception of God, shared by most mystics all
around the globe since millennia.
and usage says that "God" means an immortal person with supernatural
power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
That's the Christian use. Why do atheists insist so much we use the
christian notion, when we know that the christians (and others) have
imposed by violence the Aristotelian conception of God. Even the early
christians were quite aware of the two conception of God, and debating
on this from the start. The Aristotelian use has imposed itself by
banning or persecuting the skepticals, only. You are just confirming
that gnostic atheism is essentially the christian interpretation of
Aristotle after the persecution of the (neo)platonists (who were
called atheist during that period, note that the first to be called
atheists, by the Roman, seem to have been the christian themselves.
You want to hijack the word
No. the meaning I use is referred in most dictionnary, including
christian dictionnary of theological terms. god is just the big things
at the origin of everything.
read serious theologian or philosophers. My use of God is close to
Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St-Anselme, Gödel, Huxley, even St-
Thomas. ostchristians theologian have quickly taken some distance with
the popular notion of God, and today, even the Vatican warns the
catholics on literal reading of the texts.
Anyway, in science we are used to let the concepts evolves and be
corrected.
and justify it by referring to a handful of philosophers who also
wanted to hijack the word to gain popular credence for their ideas
which actually had nothing in common with the meaning of "God"
except that it was fundamental in some sense.
Yes. We dare to be a bit skeptical about the rigor of the
institutionalized religion. Even educated christians have no problem
with this. Only bigot fundamentalist like the gnostic atheists, and
the anglo-saxon creationists seem to have a problem with this.
This remind me Einstein alluding to the "free-thinkers":
[...] there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the
same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from
the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight
of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They
are creatures who---in their grudge against the traditional "opium for
people"---cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature
does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards
of human moral and humans aims.
(in the book by Jammer on "Einstein and Religion", page 97).
Gnostic Atheists use all the time the confusion between ~[]g and
[]~g.
The difference between ~[]g and []~g is the real fracture between
the fanatic-radicals and the scientific attitude.
Here many confuse the existing evidences for a physical reality
with the non existing evidence for a primary matter. That
confusion is easy to explain by evolution-pressure, but that does
not make it true. Science is born with the doubt that Matter is
the explanation. God exist by definition for a Platonist: it is
what the fundamental researcher is searching: the reality (which
is transcendental, we cannot prove it exists) but can try
theories ("first principles" in the antic terming).
Too bad the Platonist can't be consistent in their skepticism.
Where?
You can't define things into existence.
That is what I just say. But that is what is done by pseudo-
scientists claiming that science is materialist.
A lot of science is materialist.
This does not make any sense.
Materialism is a theory, i.e. an hypothesis, in metaphysics/theology.
I have not find one book, notably in physics, which assumes primary
matter. Usually physicists does not address such question.
Some science is sociological. Some is cognitive.
Some is about sociological phenomenon. Some is about cognitive
phenomenon. In that case, such phenomena are assumed, but they are not
necessarili (and never explicitly) assumed as primary notion. Only in
theology we have to assume them, or others, as primary.
As Vic Stenger said, "Science isn't everything, but it's about
everything."
Which is quite in line with the point I make.
Science is a method of obtaining objective (i.e. sharable) knowledge.
No problem.
You can search for what is fundamental, but that doesn't prove
that it exists.
We can only start from what we agree on, and to just define digital
mechanism, we must agree that 2+2 = 4, and Ex(x+2=4) and things
like that, taught in high school since a long time.
But that's not the same as agreeing they are fundamental rather than
descriptive.
They are enough to get the needed ontology for enunciating solving the
mind-body problem, and then I shown that more is either redundant or
inconsistent.
Then the reasoning explains that matter and mind are
phenomenological appearance emerging, from 2+2=4 and alike. It
works and is testable. Physics works, but use contradictory
statement to rely the equation and the first person verification of
the equation.
If it's contradictory then you should be able to prove anything from
it. Let's see you do it.
It makes the mind dependent on computation + something not computable
(a real physical universe, or a god). How could we say "yes" to the
doctor, if an *actual* (not FPI-recoverable) non computable element is
necessary for the mind. It makes matter both necessary and contingent.
That follows from what I have explained at length here and in many of
my papers.
I have had recently a long discussion with an "atheist" who
eventually was forced, to make his point, to eliminate
consciousness from the picture, like Dennett and the Churchland
did. He understood that a notion of ontological matter simply does
not work. It is equivalent with God made it by violating the rules
of logic.
There is no worry. Either digital mechanism is false, or physics
will relies on more solid base than observation and inductive
inference.
But that's where Platonist suddenly drop their skepticism.
? We just find a simpler theory. We don't say it is true, as a
scientist never say that a theory is true. Not sure why you say this.
There is no reason to think logic is a more solid base than
observation.
You need only "a digital machine stops or does not stop", and of
course computationalism (which actually needs that already).
It is not logic which is fundamental, but arithmetic or anything
Turing-equivalent.
Logic said relativity must be wrong.
Where, why? Only common sense and habits said that relativity is
wrong, or hardly understandable. Logic says nothing in any domain,
except that each domain has its own logic. We need only classical or
intuitionist logic about number relations and algebra.
Logic said quantum mechanics can't be that way.
That seems self-defeating. Which logic are you using to derive this?
On the contrary, classical or intuitionist logic shows that if we are
digital machine (in the comp. sense), then quantum logic has to be
derived from the first person modalites restricted on the sigma_1
sentences, and we do obtain quantum logic exactly where
computationalism predicted it to be. So quantum logic is a classical
logical consequence of classical computationalism.
Logic said there can only be five planets.
?
In fact logic doesn't "say" anything
Right.
except "X and not-X" is false.
Some logic agrees with this, and some not (the paraconsistent logic).
It is only a question of the domain used. The meta-study of
paraconsistent logic is done in classical (r intuitionist) logic(s).
Everything not contradictory is possible, which is why Platonism is
useless even if true.
That point is refuted by computationalism, because the observations
emerges from the "everything" (all computations, UD*) internal
interference, justified by the theory of machine self-reference.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
