Hi Bruno, >> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different >> cultural constructs than the christian god. > > Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will influence > a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second God" > (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches which > kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being burned > alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological secret (a > theorem from G* minus G) I guess!. > > The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of > 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of > Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we > found the second lost part!). > > Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, > like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi > in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived > n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible Enlightenment. > > The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to > steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma. > That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the > most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method > (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and I > would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning). > > So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created > the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will > steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid > “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking > Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of research. > > > > >> I believe the christian >> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything" >> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into >> a cultural operating system for large-scale control. > > That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of > total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive > functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that class. > No universal machine!
I agree, but it is sold as one. > It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty. > > It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the > “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the eyes > on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic and > muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist theology, and > often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect to burning at > stake. > > It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent > event, and we can only hope coming back to reason. > > > > >> Max Weber made a >> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are >> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon >> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions >> and so on. > > That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was > already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole > (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the > one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of > naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of > the notion of “Whole”. > > Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the > researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus > de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in > Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong > “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after I > see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed by > Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative > hypothesis” from the Parmenides. Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those cannot be seen in the light of the culture created by the monotheistic religions. >> Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they >> were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume. > > I know that you don’t confuse the popular myth and the theories discussed in > Plato Academy, but careful as many do this confusion. To be a theologian at > that time, you need a diploma in Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, > Arithmetic, Music. Hypatia was both mathematician and theologian, and that > was common. She was a great mathematician , but also a great and original > designer of astronomical measuring instruments (which is less common). > > Then, if your read the book by Daniel J. Cohen, you see that the birth of > Mathematical Logic comes from theological, or meta theological series of > discussions, like how could us, the Unitarians convince “logically” the > Trinitarians that they have gone awry? Peirce, De Morgan, Boole, and even > Lutwig Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) plays some key part in that story. They cut > their link with popular mathematics and theology in the will of academical > professionalisation during the 18th century, with the result that materialism > is still an unconscious dogma/metaphysical-assumption. This one? https://www.amazon.de/Equations-God-Mathematics-Victorian-Hopkins-ebook/dp/B001SN8GB8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524299661&sr=8-1&keywords=Equations+from+God%3A+Pure+Mathematics+and+Victorian+Faith+%28Johns+Hopkins+Studies+in+the+History+of+Mathematics%29 > > >> A >> good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication >> that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and >> the renaissance. > > Yes, if we take the greek sense of theology/religion, it is the period were > only one religion was imposed (Aristotle Materialism), and all other were > forbidden. > > Renaissance will comes from the (religious, but close to neoplatonism) > translators of the greek mathematics and theology. Fermat will write his > famous margin problem in his exemplary of Diophantus. > > But theology, for obvious historical reason, has not come back to science, > and even has become an object of mockery. > > > >> Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what >> people like John Clark seem to believe… > > > Progress are natural, but after some progress the temptation of the lies > grows also bigger, as it provides short term high benefits, and well, we are > always in sort of “prisoner dilemma”, and it is made complex by the very lies > themselves. > > The solution is simple: investing in education, research, leisure, harm > reduction, etc. I wish our culture would realize quickly that there is no real education without leisure. "Top schools" are forcing the best students to constantly study but to never think. In the US they take hard stimulants, in Asian countries they are becoming suicidal. This is a sick perversion of the idea progress. So is the acritical obsession with "productivity" for its own sake, both in academia and industry. These are the people that know the price of everything but the value of nothing. > > >> >>> But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs. > > 1500 years! > > > > >> >> He is pretty upfront about that. > > > Sure! Especially when you realise that there are still “scientist” who invoke > their god to invalidate an hypothetico- deduction. > Their god is the primary material substance postulated by Aristotle. > > If you read the Metaphysics of Aristotle, you see 25% of mockery of Plato > (sic), then 50% of attempt to solve Plato’s problem, and 25% of change of > mind without saying and taking back Plato theory of mind. Aristotle saw the > necessity of logic, he has been the first logician in Occident, but the > oldest logician were Chinese, or perhaps Indians, as far as I can see. > > I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you > understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. I believe in consciousness. > > > > >> >>> If he's >>> just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics. But he likes to take >>> subtle pokes at atheists. >> >> We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly >> stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern >> atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have >> no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue. > > > You are quite wise. The problem is that “atheists” are divided into those who > use the term for ~Bg (not believe in god). But ~Bg can be just agnostic, in > the mundane sense: (~Bg & ~B~g), and those for who atheism means B~g, they > believe that god does not exist, which is unnerving at the start for a greek > theologian, as god means not much than “my hopefully true conception of > reality that I can’t be sure upon as I guess it is a bit beyond me”. > > Hirchberger sums the theology of Plato, by saying that God is a name for > Ultimate Truth that we search, and are confronted to. Alright, this is how I see it. > Obviously, when you do metaphysics/theology with the scientific method, you > have no other choice to be agnostic, both of god or any metaphysical > hypothesis, which is what you will theorise about. > > > >> >>> Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism, >>> but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even >>> though it entials and infinity of beliefs. >> >> I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, > > You think the numbers could fail me? Maybe. > Actually, some of my favorite numbers did fail me, as I thought my best > friends, the number 2, but also 5 and many other does not really deserve to > be qualified as prime numbers! (You can easily verify by yourself that (1 + > i)(1- i) = 2, and (2 + i)(2 - i) = 5). I'm not sure I'm ok with inviting i to this party :) > You make me worry! > > There are conspiratorial numbers, no doubt. That is why I interview only > *very* simple machine, as Löbianity appears very quickly. > > Of course I assume Church-Turing thesis, and I assume “Yes-doctor” to help > the intuition (and not hide too long the shocking self-duplication, > especially to a public not aware of Everett …). The "practionners of comp”, > like Clark and the trans humanist are those who commit the “act of faith” of > mechanism. Not the logicians deriving beliefs from beliefs. > > I don’t claim any truth, and I do not assume more on the number than most > scientist. I assume much more when I teach calculus. Just considering the > real interval (0 1) and I am in the analytical hierarchy, quite above the > arithmetical hierarchy (sigma_0, sigma_1, sigma_2, …). > > Keep in mind that I use the numbers, because if I ask "do you agree that ((K > K) K) = K independently of you", people say “huh?”. (Even if I am just saying > de facto "do you agree that the first component of the couple (K K) is K? > Independently of you?” ! All good, but there's always an act of faith. Maybe I'm being deceived at a very fundamental level by believing the 0 != 1. Maybe I'm batshit crazy, how would I know? > >> and I >> agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter. > > As long as they don’t use that to lie, there is no problem. The problem is > when people invoke their own ontological commitment to invalidate a > deduction. It is equivalent to a lie. That is about the same that the Roman > Inquisition, which at least do this in public, but today, and don’t hide the > dogmatic character of their beliefs. I suspect that the Romans regarded the early Christians as we regard ISIS now. They were not willing to compromise, and were only happy if they managed to totally impose their culture and way of life on everybody. And so they did. Christians were extremely intolerant and I think that the Romans realized this. Of course, I am not defending that they should have thrown people at lions. > > >> >> More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say, >> unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other >> people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think >> you are one of the bullies. > > Brent is not, but sometimes some comment can be close to disingenuous, it > seems to me. And to you, as I realise that you cautiously explain him that > you don’t allude to him. Yup. But well, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" :) All the best Bruno! > Thanks for the help! > > All the best, > > Bruno > > PS I might be out the next days. Apology in advance for possible delays. > > > >> >> Telmo. >> >>> >>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
