On 27 Dec 2016, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/27/2016 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 18:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the
machine is Arithmetical Truth...
..
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.
Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.
It makes sense in arithmetic, because the set of true sentences is
close for the modus ponens rule, and can be seen as a set of
beliefs, so God is personified by saying that she is the knower or
the believer in the true arithmetical sentences.
But in your formalized definition of belief those true but
unprovable sentences are not believed. In anycase, simply
"believing" true propositions of arithmetic is not enough to make a
person. Otherwise my cel phone would be a person.
But the set of true sentences of arithmétic is not formalisable. That
is why "God knows .." is a metaphor. for the formalized belief it is
no more metaphorical at all.
Persons exist in space and time and interact with other persons.
No. This is true in Aristotle theology, but it has been shown
logically incompatible with computationalism which requires
platonist theology.
So you say. But I think your argument is flawed.
You have not succeeded in showing where the flaw is, or I missed it.
can you tell what the flaw is?
They have values and emotions and act on them. The "truths of
arithmetic" are not in spacetime,
OK.
don't change
OK.
or act,
deends how you define "act". Arithmetical truth can act in the
absolute sense of being the roots of all acts and facts, and in the
relative sense as defining the conditions which makes to some
person to be acting relatively to universal numbers.
To act requires change.
Then general relativity would prevent acts to exist. of course not,
but acting becomes relative indexicals.
have no emotions, values, or goals.
We don't know that.
How could they have goals when they don't change - as you agreed
above.
You take the metaphor too much seriously, like you take the notion of
God in a too much restricted sense.
So to personify them is a dishonest move.
Not in the context of a theory, where it is natural, as I explained
before. The person "god"
I notice you didn't capitalize "god", demoting it to a common noun.
An attempt to appropriate all the religious feelings of those
raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
They are the one having started with Platon theology,
I don't think Hindus, Taoist, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...were
Platonists.
Platonism comes from the east, were it developed well before
Pythagoras and Plato. But the greeks tried to get a reasonable
sharable theory from it.
and then (unfortunately) Aristotle theology.
You casually use "Aristotlean" as a pejorative.
Not at all. I take it as wrong with respect to the Mechanist theory.
What is your definition of Aristotlean?
In this context, I take it as the belief in some Primary Matter, or in
the slightly weaker epistemological sense of physicalism. The idea
that what we see is real, and not (with Plato) a symptom of a deeper
and simpler reality.
Personally I find Democritus and Epicurus more interesting Greek
philosophers than Plato and Aristotle. The latter gained their
predominance mainly through being subsumed into Christiianity by
Aquinas and Augustine, and through accidental survival of their
writings rather than those of others.
Democritus was atomist, and it is was an intersting idea, which cannot
work with mechanism. yes, Plato, thanks to Augustine, has not been not
totally forgotten, but eventually the three abramanic religion have
chosen to rely on Aristotle, like the atheists. But the great divide
is between Plato and Aristotle, that is between immaterialism and
materialism. To be sure, Plato only discussed and never concluded.
But yes, yhe general idea is that all religious feeling comes from
the same unique "One" and that that the discrepancies comes from
human literalness and contingent histories. In fact, like Alsoud
Huxley emphasized, the "true" theology is suspected to be at the
intersection of all theologies, and that is the case for the
theology of the universal numbers.
The second one take such personification literally.
The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory
when it does not conform to facts.
Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but
he insists on using the the same "metaphor". That should make it
clear he is using the "metaphor" to mislead.
Then Earth is also a metaphor, \
No, Earth is not a metaphor because it allows an ostensive definition.
Ostensive definition are indexicals. It does not lake anything real,
as we do such ostensive definition is dreams too. It just shows it to
be real locally, but not necessary ontologically.
and disallowing it would have made progress impossible.
What you say is just that Aristotle theology is the only theology
possible, and you make happy all those who want religion kept in
the hands of the manipulators. This is the roman catholic move. You
make the pope happy, not to talk of the many obscurantists in that
domain.
I'll bet the Catholic Church is a lot happier with, "Bruno Marchal
has proven mathematically that God exists."
Of course not. They forbid research, with the help of the gnostic
atheists, since a long time. Why would they change? Only the platonist
part of the Church would be happy, but when they publish they are
excommunicated, or get troubles.
than with "Brent Meeker has shown that only atoms and the void
exist; all the rest is opinion."
But you hev not chosen that. First, you need to abandon mechanism for
that, or you have to explain how your atoms select a computation, or a
sheaf of computations among all computations. I have shown that this
requires some non computationalist magic. You argument looks like "my
God made it, so don't ask questions". That will not work.
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.
