> On 4 Oct 2018, at 09:23, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 3 Oct 2018, at 23:49, Chris J <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
To be sure, “body” and “consciousness” was referring to us, not to god. It is an open question if God is conscious or not. > > 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. Not “Model number” but “Gödel number”. Dam spelling corrector! > > 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 > ... … into account. Apology for the mistakes/imprecisions, Bruno > > > > >> >> 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] > <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.
