On 12/14/2016 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
And Hindu and Muslim and Judaic and Greek and Zoroastrian and Norse and
Atzec and Inca and...
Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,
Why do you insist on denying usage and pretend that you are like Humpty
Dumpty and can make a word mean whatever you want.
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.
They distance themselves from the popular notion of God because they
recognize it is nonsense. But they don't have the nerve to give up the
word because they want to keep the respect they get by explaining God to
the hoi polloi. They play a dishonest game.
Anyway, in science we are used to let the concepts evolves and be
corrected.
But there is no "we". Theologians, including you, have made no progress
in studying God over the last ten thousand years. There is no
agreement. No body of evidence. No progress.
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).
Notice that Einstein did not use the word "God".
/
//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."//
// ---Albert Einstein, 1954, "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"/
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.
Right. In science epistemology precedes ontology. First, you study
something - then, maybe, you define it.
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
You're assuming they exist, rather than just being descriptive terms
we've invented. That's what I mean by a lack of skepticism.
for enunciating solving the mind-body problem, and then I shown that
more is either redundant or inconsistent.
But it's not enough to solve it. Just like materialism it requires an
identification of something which is not consciousness as entailing
consciousness.
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).
Like the existence of matter.
How could we say "yes" to the doctor, if an *actual* (not
FPI-recoverable) non computable element is necessary for the mind.
Because the doctor promises to use matter.
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,
You don't say that 2+2=4 is true?? Yet you want to say "It exists".
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.
Another non-skeptical assertion.
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 is just common sense refined. Distances are additive. Velocity is
just the ratio of distance traveled to time elapsed, therefore
velocities are additive. Therefore relativity is false. The Earth must
be flat since otherwise people would fall off. Inferences like that were
common, and used to disprove theories by pure logic. That's why science
depends on observation.
Brent
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
--
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.
