> On 17 Apr 2018, at 18:36, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but > you has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have > decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both christian and atheist > scholars are involved in the study of theology and you tell me that Bob is > studying theology then you have told me absolutely precisely NOTHING new > about Bob. And Bruno, as a logician you should be ashamed of yourself. > > >Ad hominem > > Ad hominem my ass! Bruno,
Try to be polite please. > you just redefined a common word that everybody already knows so that is > means exactly precisely NOTHING, You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest, to the amnesia of a millenium of (serious) theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, with an understanding that we don’t know if the ultimate reality is mathematical, physical, or something else. I use “theology” to help people to see the striking similarity between Proclus theology and the theology of the universal machine that I am describing. It is useful also to get the point that mechanism is a belief in a form of reincarnation / re-implementation, and that it asks for an act of faith. The theology of the universal (Löbian) machine is the mathematical theory G*, or G* \ G. Basically computer science minus computer’s computer science. Or Tarski's truth minus Gödel’s provability. > and then you try to use that very same word as a key element in an argument > that you claim is logical. And if that is not enough to make a professional > logician blush in embarrassment what is? In science no one brought vocabulary discussion. All terms are redefined, and what counts are only the verification criterion. Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist, but I don’t know any logicians as such. > > > > + boring vocabulary issues. > > You may think assigning a meaning to a word is dull but I think sucking > every last bit of meaning out of a word is even more boring. Do you also > think learning the meanings of mathematical symbols is boring? Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology. Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to Plotinus and Proclus. Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism. An remember that mathematicians homogenise all concepts (so that even 0 is a number, despite number meant numerous at the start). > > > In science we just redefine the terms at the beginning of all papers > > In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all, I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all terms, in any long papers. > there is no need to because they are already well known . It is very very > rare that a scientific paper redefines a common term at the very start, and > it NEVER happens that a term is redefined so that it means *nothing* in a a > scientific paper, at least not one published in a respectable journal because > they are not in the habit of printing gibberish. The truth about a machine is not nothing. > > > >> In other words you admit mathematics alone is not enough, it can't do > everything, you've got to stick physical reality into the mix because physics > can do some things mathematics can’t. > > > You misread what I said. Yes, we need brain and physical machine to get > the human consciousness > > So physics can do something that mathematics can’t. Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of materialism. > There are an astronomical number of examples of physics doing mathematics, > I'm looking at one right now as I'm writing this on my computer, but there is > not one example of mathematics doing physics. You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3 which makes you not understanding the point. > Mathematics is the best language for describing physics but mathematics is > not physics any more than the word "dog" is a 4 legged mammal that says > woof. See above. > > > > You talk like a creationist > > I guess you can't think of a new putdown so its time to get out my old trusty > rubber stamp that I've used dozens of times before and will continue to use > every time you drag out that tired old insult: > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that > one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > > You invoke Matter using it in a theological or metaphysical invalid way. > > I said it before I'll say it again, as a logician you should be ashamed of > yourself for sucking all the meaning out of the word "theological". > > >> Yes I am able to doubt it, just show me something that can calculate 2+2 > without matter that obeys the known laws of physics and I would doubt it very > much. But I'm not holding my breath. > > > > Read any textbook, > > Show me a textbook that can calculate 2+2, Why should a textbook be able to compute? But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can, in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has been used to design physical computers. > but if that's too hard at least show me a textbook that is not made of matter > that obeys the laws of physics. By definition of textbook that is impossible. But it is not what I have ever said. You use straw man argument all the time. Like in step 3, your refutation always suppress the key distinction between the pronouns, followed by the critics of the use of pronouns. You show up your prejudices. You might try to understand before criticicizing. I could also reverse the charge: if you believe in primary matter, give me just one evidence. Don’t confuse matter and primary matter, because that confusion is the theology of Aristotle. > > > If you agree that all odd squares are either the sum of 1 and 8 > triangular numbers, or not, INDEPENDENTLY of any physical laws > > My agreement or disagreement is certainly not independent of physical laws. Sure, but again, that was not the question. > And triangular numbers is a story written in the language of mathematics, Sure, but the language of mathematics is not part of mathematics. > in what sense is that story more real than the story of Harry Potter written > in the language of English? Actually I happen to think the triangular number > story is more real than the Harry Potter story because it is more closely > related to matter that obeys the laws of physics. But why do you think so? Because it follows from the simple principles on which most agree in elementary arithmetic. Bruno > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
