On 12/27/2016 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 20:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>>
Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when
they use the word
[God]
.
>
But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.
Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word
"God" is clear
Really?
It's certainly more definite than the set of all meanings, including
yours, which are given to the word "God". You can't make a word better
defined by adding meanings.
and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or disappear
the universe would look very different depending on if that switch
was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so it
would make no difference if He existed or not.
My God, as you call it, is a testable theory, since physics is derived
from a internal modal variant of self-reference. I derived formally a
quantum logic, and explained informally how we get the statistical
interference. Well, up to now it fits the fact, and to my knowledge,
is the only theory explaining the difference between qualias and
quantas, where the Aristotelian theology fails.
It doesn't explain them. It just takes two aspects of modal logic and
says one corresponds to qualia and one to quanta. But qualia and quanta
don't actually appear. It's as if you said here is arithmetic; the
prime numbers are qualia and the composite numbers are quanta. To
explain them you would need to show their relation to perception and to
objects in the world as well as internal narratives and imagination.
>>
It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
supernatural power who wants and deserves to be
worshiped" means something.
>
Really?
Yes
really. "An
immortal person
exists
with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped
"
means something
, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.
In this case wrong. But when you say "God" it means nothing so it's
rather like a burp,
it's just a noise
and is neither right nor wrong.
God is used in the philosophers sense: the primary cause, which is the
god of the platonist.
Aristotle also held that there must be a first cause. Why call it "god"
and why attribute the idea to Plato. I don't think Plato even gave an
argument for a first cause.
Science is born from the doubt that reality is wysiwyg.
And from a desire to explain what you see and predict what you'll get.
The original question is about the nature of the physical observable.
You talk like if scientists have solved the problem, but it has not.
>>
Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
don't know what they're talking about when they talk about
"God".
>
We use the greek notion.
I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot
ancient Greeks!
They proposed the two big different conceptions of reality: either a
primary physical universe (naturalism, materialism, ...) or something
else from which the physical can itself been explained (either Plato's
God, or even Pythagoras" God (only numbers and enumerable number
relations).
The relevant theological fracture is there. I the physical universe
the real thing, or are we "just" universal numbers lost in an
arithmetical web of dreams. Both theory (computer science) and
observations (quantum mechanics) adds evidence that the internal
many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic might be a simpler theory.
In theology, the greeks were the only rationalist trying to explain
experiences, and compared to the canonical theology of the ideally
self-referentially correct universal machine, the two "idiots"
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, might still be the closest human
case of self-referentially correct self-reference.
Don't confuse the first god of Aristotle (usually called God), the
second God of Aristotle (Primary Matter), the god of Plato (first
principle) and the god of Pythagoras (the natural numbers).
tha basic idea is that God is whatever is at the origin of you actual
state of consciousness. The greeks were those who understood the
transcendent character of that thing, and get to the debate between
variants of mathematicalism and variants of physicalism (to use our
terming).
>
>>
god is just the big things at the origin of everything.
>>
And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you
prepared to call that God? Of course you're not!
>
?
*!
*
*
*
>>
And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want
something that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful,
not something as mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.
>
?
*!*
>
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the
machine is Arithmetical Truth.
The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as
little) existence as the
set of all true arithmetical statements; without physics and the
computations
The physical computations are still defined by the physical
implementations of the computations. two beers in the fridge is not
rsponsible for the numbers 2 to exist physically, and here you beg the
question by assuming the second god of Aristotle. It is the favorite
gods of the catholics.
it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the correct
multiplication table
can't think any better than
an
incorrect multiplication table
. And a God that can't think is a pretty low rent God.
The correct arithmetical relations implements all computations (and
more). Nobody is interested in 2+2=5.
>>
And speaking of a
sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference
between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?
>
The first one personified God metaphorically.
The second one take such personification literally.
So God has a metaphorical mind with metaphorical intelligence and
metaphorical consciousness who does metaphorical things and has a
metaphorical existence. So God is every bit as real as Batman is.
No. You need the pythagorean god to compute your taxes, or to solve an
equation in physics.
You need only batman for having a good time for some hours, from times
to times.
When seeking an answer to a philosophical question you'd do just as
well to ask the opinion of an expert on Batman comics as you would to
ask the opinion of an expert on God.
>>
I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a
better understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the
sake of argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy
mindless blob did not exist; how would the universe be one
bit different? What could "God" bring to the table that
something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?
>
God exist by definition.
You can create any definition you like and when you do so the
definition exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing
or concept that is being defined exists.
Of course. if that was the case, I would not have said that God exist
by definition for the platonist.
I can define "flobknee" as "the integer that is equal to 2+3 but is
not equal to 5", the definition exists but the integer does not.
But my question was not about definitions.
I want to know how the universe would be different if
,
an
invisible
amoral
fuzzy mindless blob
that does nothing to violate the laws of physics and does not hear
our prayers and is indifferent to our fate, did not exist. So what is
your answer, how would things be different?
>
if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
I asked this question before but you did not answer it, If physics
someday proved that the quantum vacuum was responsible for existence
would you be prepared to call a vacuum God? I very much doubt it.
I would if *you* could explain how that observable vaccum select the
first person view among all computations. If that is the acse, I would
certainly accept that the quantum vaccum is the son of the glass of
bear. With mechanism, we have the good theory of consciousness, but to
relate it to the observation is a complex exercise in the
self-reference logics.
God must be able to think or the word becomes a joke.
That shows only how much you take for granted the brainwashing of the
clericals. They are those who have tried to hide the greeks, even to
bannish them and forbid the personal inquiry and research in the field.
You Sir, are more catholic than the Pope, I think. You disregard any
theology which does not fit with a stupid conception of theology, I
guess because it is so fun to mock fake theory than to undertaken the
genuine reflexion.
I don't believe in the god in which you don't believe but still keep
talking about.
But you keep capitalizing the god you believe in - just as the Church
requires and following the convention of capitalizing names of persons.
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.
