> On 3 Oct 2018, at 23:49, Chris J <[email protected]> wrote: > > Question: If God is the 3-character ASCII sequence G-O-D, does that require > God to be American? > > If not, then what, Unicode? UTF-8? ISO/IEC 10646?
God, the notion, (not a special theory) is defined by whatever is responsible for us to exist, with perhaps a body, but certainly consciousness. With the Mechanist hypothesis, God can be defined by the arithmetical truth, that you can represent as the set of (Model number) or the true arithmetical proposition. By Tarski theorem, that set is not definable in arithmetic. By Gödel’s theorem, that set is highly not computable. So, we get a common theological point (common to many traditions) which is that God is not a nameable thing. The term “god” is a substantiva pointing to the notion, but is not a definition per se (of course). > > Same for Bruno, I am also curious about this question for notation for the > Löbian Machine. A Lôban machine is a universal machine which knows that she is universal. Typical example is any (sound) machine believing in addition and multiplication of natural numbers, + the induction axioms, like PA, ZF, ... > And if not for this very instant, then I ask what encoding standard should be > preferred in its future implementation? In the arithmetical reality, to derive physics, we need to take all encodings. > > I know this query sounds absurd but if any of these things are to become real > (assuming they are not already), then will they not require definition not > merely of notation but of the substructure of that very notation? The structure arise from the laws of addition and multiplication, only. Or from abstraction and application, if you start from the lambda terms, or the combinators. You can take the game of life patterns, … Any universal system would do (universal in the sense of Turing, Church, …). > > Or if these are not notations and exist only in the mind (of 1p? of 3?) then > is that not already self-referential proof? It exists in the arithmetical reality, a bit like the complex distribution of prime numbers is determined by the arithmetical axioms. Nothing more than arithmetic is assumed (with mechanism at the meta-level to make the relation with consciousness). The shorter and smallest theory I use often is the two axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz =xz(yz). See the combinators recent thread(s). > > Do my letters have any weight in this argument or are John Clark and Bruno > Marchal the same symbol talking to itself? We are the same person, yes. But that identity will belong to G* \ G, so I have not the right to say this, actually. But the body is different. The body is just a word. The physical body is the word which arise from the sum on all computations, below our substitution level. It is word written in the biochemical language, apparently. Bruno > > > > On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:10:53 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:27 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Please read Plotinus or Proclus > > Not a snowball's chance in hell!! I'd learn more science and mathematics > from reading Mother Goose. > > >>So there is not one God there are an infiniti of them > > >No, there is only one. The reason why you are here is the same as the reason > >why any universal number exist. I did not say that any machine is god. > > You said "Consider any digital machine. It corresponds to some number k [...] > The theology of the machine k is define by the set of all true sentence about > k". And all true statements about digital machine k are not the same as all > true statements about digital machine k+1. And if theology is the study of > God then there are a infinity of Gods. And not one of those Gods is as smart > as a sea slug. > > I said it before I'll say it again, you've abandoned the idea of God but > refuse to abandon the 3 character ASCII sequence G-O-D. > > 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.
