On 14 Dec 2016, at 22:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
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...
Yes, the personification of God is very popular, but if your read the
text of the theologian, personification is not part of the metaphysics
in many case. Even taoist can pray the Tao, even Einstein, who insists
that he dos not believe in a personal God keep calling It the Good Lord.
Many people can say "My car did not want to start this morning"
without believing that their car have will. I use the term "God" in
the sense of the greek theologian, and if you look at my publications,
I never use the word God. When I talk about machine theology, I
present the arithmetical interpretation of the work of Moderatus to
Plotinus, and use the term "one" which is the standard name of the
outer 3p big things from which every realities emanates.
The personification has been made "theoretical" by the politics, has
it ... popular. But that is just demagogy. The personal character of
God is a complicated open question. We can come back on that very
question, but we can also associate a person to any set of beliefs/
propositions, as it is a common thing to do, but as always in "serious
theology", those are metaphor.
I have used the term God only in answering post which were using that
term. It is not my terming, but it is a common way to refer to It.
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.
Because as Telmo and many others said already, I use the common terms
used by all theologians and philosophers, and scientists, without
attaching it to any religious "theory". I am not denying a usage, I
vindicate it, but I might deny, or not, some theories of It.
Again, if you read serious theologian, even christian one, some are
open to neoplatonistm and are open that God is not the person describe
in the sacred texts.
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.
It is the science game. We never said that earth did not exist when we
got the evidence that Earth was not flat.
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.
They invented mathematics, physics, biology, etc.
There is no agreement. No body of evidence. No progress.
Please, study theology from Pythagoras to Damascius. The progress have
been termendous. Then came Aristotle, who got the wrong theorey (with
respect to Mechanism), but the politics (Roman Empire) have
brainwashed us so much that few people are aware than believing in a
primary physical Universe is a religious belief, and that the evidence
are that it does not exist, which shows that we have regressed in
*science* since the closure of Plato Academy.
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"
yes. Just see what I say above. Einstein was just rigorous in
theology, and aware that the belief in a world is a religious belief,
like the Löbian machine get the point that believing in a model of
oneself is equivalent with believing in one consistency, and that such
a belief cannot be justified rationally. Einstein was an Aristotelian
believer. He was wrong (assuming mechanism), but rigorous. That is
remarkably well explained in Jammer's book on "Einstein and Religion".
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.
But this does not entail you have to reify it, which is done by the
physicalist and the believer in primary matter. If the brain is Turing
emulable, physicalism does not work anymore. Rationalist should be
happy, it shows that the greek platonist were right, matter is a
secondary notion which needs to be explained in term of something
else. Why add a God (Matter) when not only we don't need it, but more:
we can't use it to explain first person experience.
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.
To refute the consequence of mechanism, you need to show that x+2=4
has no solution. You don't need to reify the existence of the numbers.
You need only to believe what has been taught to you so that you can
solve an equation. You introduce philosophy to block science, like the
pseudo-religious people. The theology or metaphysics, or unprovable
thing used in the computationalist theory consists only in the bet
that makes us accepting a mechanical transplant in our body.
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.
The whole point is that the theory Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) are
enough and that you cannot add anything to it, except for pedagogical
purpose.
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.
Exactly. And it does not work once you assume Mechanism. That the
point of my argument.
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.
Of course, given that a computer is a physical implementation of a
universal number. But the doctir does not use "primary matter", and
indeed, if his patient survive, primary matter becomes non-sensical.
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".
I assume predicate logic is valid about the numbers. The existential
rule says that you can deduce Ex(x+2=5) from 3+2=5. 3 exists as a
solution of the equation x+2=5. And, as we assume elementary
arithmetic (or elementary combinators theory, or Turing equivalent) I
will say that numbers exists. from 7 = 7 I can deduce Ex(x=x). No need
of introducing confusing metaphysics for making people doubting
elementary arithmetic.
"exist" is always used in the sense of the first order logical theory
assumed.
And atheists should love it, because, like in Plotinus; God will not
exist in that sense, yet it will exists in a derivative, more
epistemological sense, exactly like matter and consciousness, as "E"
is limited to natural numbers. The epistemological existence/
appearance, of consciousness, God, matter, will be stated the in the
(meta)-arithmetical modal logics of the self-reference of the
universal numbers.
Digital Mechanism can be said to be super-atheism, as it disproves the
two Gods of the Aristotelian, the Creator and the Creation. (Note that
Aristotle "creator" is not really a creator, but a first move, it was
already only deism, but the christians will add the fairy tales).
Digital Mechanism can be said to be super-religious, as it asks us
some explicit act of faith toward some realisation of universal
machines, and elementary arithmetic is shown to be both enough and
ontologically not completeable, yet, with a rich first person
epistemology which contain physics (normally at the first person
plural level), so we can test it.
Bruno
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.
But that is derived from Digital Mechanism. We need to postulate
natura numbers (or Turing equivalent), and then the THEOREM is that we
can't postulate in the ontology anything more than that without
becoming either redundant (in which case we do not genuinely add
something) or inconsistent, because we would add things which are
explained, like adding invisible horse to the engine thermodynamic
just to pretend that thermodynamic does not work. That makes no sense.
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.
That is not logic. It is logic + a bit of geometry and physics.
The Earth must be flat since otherwise people would fall off.
Inferences like that were common, and used to disprove theories by
pure logic.
Logic + the wrong theory. Logic is used both to make a theory, and
disprove the theory from the observation.
That's why science depends on observation.
I never said anything contradicting that. Indeed, that is how I show
that the theology of the universal machine is testable. Physics is in
our head, and to test Mechanism, we need to compare the physics in our
head (us = the universal numbers) with observation. 40 years ago I
thought I was close to refute mechanism because I showed that it
predicted that below our substitution level, we must observe
indeterminacy, non-locality, many histories/dreams/computations, etc.
and I though it was nonsensical, until I discovered that quantum
physics confirms all this.
I think the problem we have is just vocabulary. My point is just that
in the mechanist theory, the whole of physics (not geography) is a
theorem in machine's biology/psychology/theology. I have used most of
the time the term "biology", and later I have discovered that self-
reference introduce nuance between theoretical biology (self-
reproduction, self-regeneration---handled by the second recursion
theorem of Kleene), theoretical psychology (idem, but in a different
way) and theology, which introduce what no (Löbian) machine can miss,
and which I call now the "surrational", which is by is true for a
machine, but that the machine cannot justify rationally, nor even
taken as axioms, yet can be intuited, inferred, etc.
Basically, at the propositional level, the (proper) theology is given
by G* minus G, Z* minus Z, X1* minus X1, etc. I explain how to derive
physics from that (and derived actually the propositional logic of the
observable).
If someone find a proposition in the physics which is in the head of
the universal number contradicted by nature, then we just abandon the
theory, or correct it, or improve it, etc. But to invent matter just
to block the argumentation is like criticizing evolution theory
because it fails to explain how God made the whole reality in six
days. That is called begging the question, and it is not valid.
Bruno
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.
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.
