> On 2 Jun 2018, at 17:10, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> I'd like to see Bruno actually quote some well known philosophers or > >> scientist using the term. > > > Materialism vs. Idealism is one of the oldest philosophical debates, > Yes, and like all old philosophical debates philosophers have not moved one > inch closer to a resolution of the problem in the last 2000 years, they just > keep going around and around in circles. >
Only by people like you who defend dogma with or without saying. But what you say is pure catholic propaganda. From -500 to +500, theology has progressed a lot. It gave rise to both physics and mathematics. And the atom of renting serious theology by the British some century ago gave birth to Mathematical Logic, but then the logicians were literally forced to hide both the entertaining and the theological motivations to have the right to teach it academically. That is well explained in the book by Daniel Cohen on the Victoria Era. > That's not to say gigantic progress in philosophy hasn't been made, its just > that philosophy is no longer done by philosophers, its done by scientists and > mathematicians. Newton, Gauss, Darwin, Maxwell, Cantor, Einstein, Hubble, > Godel,Turing, Everett, and Watson and Crick advanced the field of philosophy > enormously; > That is true, but only partially. Yet it illustrates my point. To separate philosophy from science is just impossible. It consists usually to take for granted the current philosophical paradigm. > Karl Popper did not. > > > The uber-mainstream wikipedia defines materialism as a belief in that > matter is primary. > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview : > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Overview :> > > "To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and > matter secondary. " > > It would seem to me that statement is about as un-controversial and > non-profound as a statement can be. In this context "secondary" doesn't mean > second rate, it just means there is a difference between nouns and verbs. > “Stuff" is not the same as "doing stuff" and doing stuff is secondary because > stuff obviously can't do anything if stuff doesn't exist. I'm not saying this > is deep I'm just saying its true. And by the way, the number of times the > phrase "primary matter" is mentioned in that article is exactly the same > number you will find it mentioned in any modern physics journal. Zero. > > The reason the “primary matter" debate is never going to get anywhere is that > philosophers write impassioned posts and even scholarly tomes about the > existence or non-existence of "primary matter” ? > but never once ask themselves what the hell the term is supposed to mean, Well, then you should appreciate my work, as (and that was the goal), I show that primary matter is a testable idea. It canot make any sense with mechanism, but physics must be given by the logic and mathematics of the first person (plural) view on the sigma_1 sentences. I predicted all quantum weirdness from this, but also AI, and the development of computer science from this before realising that QM, which I thought to be anti-mechanist for awhile, actually confirmed all the computationalist weirdness. When my colleagues begun to realise that, I got the pressure to do the PhD thesis, which has been understood by all scientists who read it, and has got problem only with very rare people having the materialist dogma., but having some “social influence” also. > and many don't even wonder what "matter" means. Leibniz invented the silly > catch phrase but, as is customary whenever scientists put on their > philosopher's hat, he was rather vague (and Bruno even more vague) Not at all. There is not one statement I make which is not a precise first order or second order statement in arithmetic, except for the experimental verification of course. > about what "primary matter” means; and that's why specialists in the study of > matter, physicists, have never found the idea useful. Solving fundamental question is not necessary useful, or not directly useful. But since almost five years I am studying Bektashi Islam, as I have begun to realise that, even more than the Caballa and the mystic christians, who have never completely abandoned neoplatonism, the Bektashi are the closer to the theology of the machine. Then, last week I discovered that the Albania was the only country with more jews after than before the war. The whole population have saved and hidden the jews and those threatened by the nazis. They have refused to send jews in Italy (which was siding with the Germans at the beginning of the war). I knew also that most Albanases were muslim, so I verify which one, and indeed they were Bektashi. It is not astonishing: they share with the machine theology the modesty and the fact that truth cannot be enforced, and is, in the religious field, beyond any possible text. They forbid the literal reading of the Coran, and they encourages the good relation with the other religion and mind. Of course the Bektashi have been themselves the preys of the nazis, the ottomans, and the dogmatic religion. There are still 60,000 of them, with the Alevis in the Balkans. They are still today massacred by the Turkish people, but the media does not seem interested … The Bektashi are the descendent of those who have continue the neoplatonic research in the Middle-east, together with the jews, and the christians. So, when I say that science (including theology) is from -500 to +500 in occident, I can make this more precise in mentioning that it has continue up to the eleventh century in Orient, and slowly taken back in occident leading to the Renaissance. Why did the Muslims decline in science since them? The reason, is that, like the christians in Occident, they will take some theological axiom preventing the scholars to contradict the “sacred text literally”, and of course they will just kill the opponents after that. The mistake was done by Al Ghazali, in his famous “the incoherence of the philosophers”, which was a frontal attack on rationalism. At least Gazhali defends that science must be taught and studied, but only when it comforts with the scripture, which was exactly what the Bektashi were opposed to do. Eventually I found a video which sum up this not too badly (it oversimplifies some periods, don’t insist too much on the Jewish contributions, and forget (but that is normal) to mention the possible role of the Krakatoa cataclysmic eruption (in 6th century), which seems to have triggered the invasion of the Mongols. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60JboffOhaw > And “free will” is a idea that’s even worse, In theology, those who have fought against free-will are exactly those who have fought against science. For centuries, free-will was used to describe those who believe that the human can take their responsibility (as opposed to follow the book). Free-will is the ability to say no to God or to the its alleged representing on Earth. Free-will was what the laïc, like the Bektashi were defending. Bruno > but of course that hasn’t stopped philosophers from generating a vast > quantity of verbiage about that too. > 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.
