> On 18 Oct 2018, at 21:24, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2018 6:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Oct 2018, at 03:50, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/15/2018 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11 Oct 2018, at 19:26, John Clark <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:15 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>You can't do metaphysics with a scientific attitude, if you could it >>>>> >>wouldn't be metaphysics, it would just be physics. Metaphysics means >>>>> >>unscientific speculation about physics. >>>>> >>>>> >That is why I prefer the term theology. >>>>> >>>>> That's pretty silly, metaphysics is a vastly better word to use in >>>>> philosophical speculation. Both metaphysics and theology are unscientific >>>>> but theology necessarily implies God while metaphysics doesn't. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is an opinion of radical pseudo-religious people. There is no >>>> scientific domain. There is only a scientific attitude, and this can be >>>> applied in any domain. >>>> >>>> The separation of religion from science is an invention by people wanting >>>> to use religion to control people, and steal their money. >>> >>> That's silly. Religion existed long before science was developed. >>> Religion was invented, and believed, by people who wanted to understand and >>> control their fate in the world. They understood other people who had >>> desires and motives and got angry and loved and hated, so they inferred >>> that the weather and seas and the volcano were agents like people only >>> bigger and more powerful. So they sought to propitiate these gods and >>> demons by offering them what was precious; including the lives of their >>> children. Shamans, priests, and kings took advantage of this by pretending >>> to be intermediaries to the gods and experts in their propitiation. They >>> invented prayers and rituals and sacrifices. >>> >>> The "separation" of science from religion was the invention of science >> >> Not at all. Science is born with Plato, > > No. Science was born with Thales of Miletus. The pre-Socratics were limited > by their technology, so they didn't experimentally test their theories of the > elements. But they did make measurements related to astronomy and estimated > the size of the Earth, the distance to the Sun and Moon. They appreciated > that the senses could be deceived and Democritus warned that observation is > uncertain and must be evaluated by reason. Plato went even further. In his > parable of the cave he taught that perception was only of the shadow of > reality. Reality was in the realm of ideas and could only be grasped by the > mind.
Excellent summary. > This devaluing of experience and more mystical approach to reality was > congenial to Christianity. I would say it is congenial to all mysticisme. Plato describes this as a reminiscence, a remembering of some sort, and a discovery of a sort of internal congenial reality, like arithmetic, mathematics. The devaluating of experimental experience is as bad as the devaluating of reason and personal experiences. > The Church fathers, Augustine and Aquinas, merged the ideas of Plato and > Aristotle into theology. Yes, that is what I like with the christians, the Israelite and the muslims, they will keep a bit of platonism alive. Note the corresponding divergence (materialism/idealism) in many continents. > So ecclesiastical education included the physics of Aristotle. Indeed. Even the jews will succumb to Aristotle, which did not understood Plato. > The writings of the pre-Socratics were not so congenial and were generally > not preserved. This and other factors caused a long pause in the > advancement of science after the fall of the Roman Empire. A pause we now > call The Dark Ages. The dark age is basically the consequence of having steel theology, and thus all science (at that time) to the academy, to impose it as a way to make an empire to begin with. That cannot work, not because of theology, but because any fields needs to be selected by critics to evolve. Renaissance is half-enlightenment, all sciences have come back to the academy, except theology. We still tolerate the abuse of authority in the most complex and fundamental field (per definition). > >> who understood that for having a fundamental science, we must believe in a >> reality, and that this need an act of faith. That reality is GOD, the object >> of religion. > > Exactly "the object of religion" which bases belief on faith; The faith that there is a reality. It is the faith needed to do research in the fundamental science. Difficulties are made by those who claims to know the truth. > the opposite of science which renounces faith as a basis knowledge. Not in metaphysics. Some scientists declare non recevable any argument which could make people understand that maybe we can conceive reality, for rational reason, and experimental reason, differently than the materialism, which pervades the “believers” and “non-believers”, like if the choice was between matter with god and matter without god, when the truth is perhaps just the music of the primes. > >> Of course, the popular religion did have all sort of Gods, from turtles all >> the way down, to very personalised sort of reality. Now, when religion is >> done with the scientific attitude, which is what Plato did, it is named >> theology, and for one millenium it was a science. The Reality was mainly >> either Nature, or something else which would be deeper and non natural >> (“supernatural”). Plato called it the “world of ideas” (the Noùs). Plato’s >> world of idea was inspired by Pythagorus who taught it as being “only >> number”. > > Yes, ideas they believed on faith. Did they test their ideas? Did they ever > have a theory they tested and found to be false? Yes. They main theory is Aristotle theology (the belief in primary Matter, usually called “the physical universe”, if not “the universe". Quantum mechanics, in the light of Mechanism is the theory of mind, validates a Pythagorean form of Plato. It makes “primary matter” into a useless complications, but of course, that has to be dogged deeper, both theoretically and empirically. The least I say is that this point is not settled. > >> >> That theology has progressed and gave birth to Mathematics, which was seen >> as the alternative of physics. > > It was never "an alternative". It started as geometry...the measurement of > the Earth, now a branch of physics. And counting, which was just a matter of > enumerating similar objects, like sheep. Read the neoplatonist, and search on Xeusippes. The cave was the physical reality, the “reality beyond” was the world of ideas. Aristotle mocks Plato, in the metaphysics, but at some point he grasp the point. Mathematics did not start from geometry, the Pythagorean triples where found on Babylonian tablets older than 3000 years (if not more). Arithmetic and geometry have develop together for long. > > >> The (Neo)pythagorean and the (Neo)platonist will pursue that line where the >> doubt was about the fundamental nature of reality was >> immaterial/mathematical. You might read Plotinus' ennead “On number”, to see >> how Plotinus foresaw Cantor, and the machine’s discourse. The term >> “mathematician” was used at that time to mean “rationalist sceptics about >> the fundamental nature of the physical reality”/ The original doubt was >> between mathematics and physics as fundamental science. Aristotle will side >> with Plato on this, but his interest in Nature will make him to influence >> people to opt the idea that physics might be directly about reality. >> >> For example, in the year 400 Hypatia was teaching both the Mathematics of >> Diophantus, and the theology of Plotinus. That was very common. > > Are we supposed to take these early thinkers as definitive? I'm with JKC on > this. We've come a long way since Plotinus and his mystic opinions are about > as useful Grog the caveman’s. Well this shows only you never read it. It shows that you think we have solved all the problem in philosophy of mind and in metaphysics. It shows that you take granted Aristotle theology. You are a believer in the physical universal, as the main explanation of consciousness. There is no experimental evidence for that. But there is a proof that arithmetic emulates all universal numbers, which makes a highly sort of Indra nets. A physical universe? I am afraid it might not be my religion. The ability of the digits to do prestidigitation seem far more plausible to me. But as a scientist working in exactly that field, my opinion is of no value. I show the theory and the experiences. > >> >> But, the christians will separated into intellectual, disputing if Plato or >> Aristotle were right, and integrist or radicals which will use religion to >> get power, and the history is that, despite Constantin (Roman emperor >> converted to Christianity) was rather close to the platonist intellectual, >> eventually the radicals will get the power. >> After 529, when the emperor Justinian did close Plato’s Academy, the Church >> will, by its action separate theology (the fundamental science of the greek >> per definition) from science.The result is that science will be associated >> more and more with Aristotle: that is: the belief in physical primary >> universe. Science itself became a psedo-religion, with a sort of dogma: >> Matter, and this up to the point that today, most people have completely >> forget that the original debate was never on the existence of the ONE (god) >> but on the existence of a primary (“physicalist”) Nature. >> By separating religion-theology from science, religion will keep the popular >> superstition, and buried a millenium of science. Theology/religion will >> become more and more an instrument of politics (of the non democratic kind, >> of course). >> The first attempt to separate religion from the state and politics, cale >> from religious people wanting to save religion/theology from politics (not >> for saving politics from religion!: that will come later). > > You seem to forget that religion went back far before Plato and Aristotle and > the Catholic Church. And it wasn't some scientific search for truth in > Babylon or Egypt. It was always an instrument of social control, an origin > story explaining why our cultural practices we approved by the universe. Yes, that is how the humans ahem evolved, by making “social theories” based on the “reality they try to unify or explain”. A religion is a conception of reality. > You should read Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, David Sloan Wilson, or someone who > has actually studied religions, instead of trying transfer a patina of > ancient wisdom to your modal logic. It is not ancient wisdom. You seem to never have read any author among the neoplatonist. Even there some flirt with the sueprsitituoin and numerology, but the plotinian condemn that kind or reading of Plato, and some did only for poetical art, being serious when tackling the genuine metaphysical problem. I work with people who studied religion all the times. You seem unaware that we can doubt Aristotle theology. I am the skeptical here. If you are seen a paper providing the slightest evidence for primary matter or physicalism let me know. You do seem a bit dogmatic here. > >> >> Superstition was just popular, in all sciences before the greeks. A religion >> is only a conception of reality, and Plato understood that the belief in a >> reality cannot be rational (exactly what the universal machine explain all >> by themselves, by <>t -> ~[]<>t (<>t = consistency = a reality exist, by >> Gödel’s COMPLETENESS theorem). >> >> The first superstition were on the ONE thing responsible for all the others, >> and it became, with Plato, the thing which we need to unify all sciences. >> Theology gave quickly birth to mathematics and physics, seen as alternative. >> In the 19th century, mathematical logic will born from a dispute between >> unionists (mostly mathematicians) and trinitarians (mostly clergyman, but >> still intellectual knowing well Plato, to attack his immaterial and non >> personal conception of the fundamental reality). >> >> Todays science is superstitious or dogmatic (or both) in making physics into >> the fundamental science, > > Bullshit. Nobody, least of all physicist, worries about what science is > fundamental. They just formulate theories and try to test them...by any > means necessary. Yes that is right I did not meant the physicists. No problem there. The problem comes from the philosophers who, even in academia, can be dogmatic (and worse) only. No problem even from the religious people in general, except those who are dogmatic on any theological points, of course. > >> despite there has never been a shadow of evidence for primary matter. > > And yet physics has succeeded spectacularly in explaining the world. You totally confuse “predicting” and explaining. Without an explanation of how 1p experience is related to 3p experience, I would say that physics explains just nothing, or everything which is too much. I do love physics, and cosmology, but I don’t take this an an explanation, more as the things which have to be explained. > Which points out that nobody cared what was "primary"; just what worked. The problem does not come from the physicists. The problem come from the metaphsyicist who makes physics into a metaphysics. Now, when tackling fundamental question, they do care a bit on the elementary notion, and infer elementary particles, for examples, but there is no problem. The problem is when bad philosophers use all this to claim that this makes the mind-body problem solved, when it is simply not address. There is no problem with physics. Only with the metaphysical/religious defence of physicalism. Maybe they feel wrong, the dislike the idea that their favorite dogma can be tested. > >> Indeed, we don’t even try to seek such evidences, contrary to the ancient >> who tried at least to find one. > > The only evidence that there can be for X being primary is that there's a > successful theory of everything and X is the ontology of that theory. So far > there is no theory of everything. False. There is an infinity of one. All universal machinery is one. You are one, in particular. But not a practical one to assume. I have given them many times. See the combinators thread for an introduction to one. > Physics is a theory of lots of stuff, but it's not even clear on what its > ontology is...is it particles or fields, is it strings or quantum loops or is > it equations? When there is some more successful theory, then we can worry > about its ontology. Physics predicts wonderfully well, but explain nothings. It gives a tremendous description of our neighborhood, I am really impressed. But it does not address the fundamental question: Why here why now, why it hurts and for how long? > >> After 529, all those doubting the materialist dogma were banished or killed. >> Neoplatonism (scientific theology will still continue up to 1258, where, >> unfortunately Islam will decide to submit Reason to the Text (the Quran, >> then) against Averroes, who defended the idea that the TEXT must be >> submitted (interpreted) to Reason (which will influence the Renaissance). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> as a way of knowing what was fact and what was superstition. >> >> Read Plato. They discuss this in deep. Notably to explain that a fact, as >> lived as fact, can be dreamed, and thus cannot be a criteria for any >> ontology except a dreamer, but then what is that dreamer. > > Mystic muddle. Dreams are not experience of facts. That's why they are > called "dreams”. The point is that a machine cannot distinguish by sense the difference. By experiences, they will be able to weigh probabilities on histoires/computions. > >> Today at least we have a very good candidate (arithmetic). Church thesis >> rehabilitates completely Pythagorus idea that only numbers exists, and the >> physical universe is a superstition, unlike the physical reality, which was >> the thing to be explained. > > Except it doesn't explain anything about the world. It explains why we believe there is a world from very elementary first principles, when they might be none (at least not in the sense of one unifying reality for all sentient beings). It gives the vocabulary, thanks to the mathematical logicians, to address the theological question. > >> >> >> >>> Science was testing beliefs and holding them only provisionally. >> >> Exactly, and that attitude was the base of Plato’s theology, and even >> Aristotle theology. To be sure, in his “metaphysics” Aristotle mocks Plato, >> and clearly did not understood it, but eventually grasped the point to >> conclude in a very platonist way. >> >> So I insist on this: the institutionalisation of superstition has been the >> result of the separation of science and theology. > > Right. And the institutionalized superstition is religion. Exactly, and that is what happened in some academies, where scientist does not dare to contradict his eminent colleagues of philosophy despite this one invokes an ontological commitment, be it materialist idealist, or even number theoretical, whatever. Yes, materialism is religion for some. But here religion is used in the sense of “imposed conception of reality”, when at the start it is “suggesting a conception of reality”, in eternal need of verification. > >> Before this Plato already put the supersitituio away in the most fundamental >> science theology. Read all neoplatonist, you will not see anything >> supersititious in there. > > Neither will I see anything useful there. Useful? Is truth useful? Hardy would have been disappointed that Number theory has became terribly useful since computers. I don’t thing “useful” is useful when we search the truth. On the contrary, the lies are probably much more useful in the many short terms. I sincerely believed that if theology would have stay in science, there would not have been middle-ages, just research, testing, and congress. Materialism would have succeeded but ever tested, and Newtonian mechanics is compatible with (contrary to mechanism), and Quantum Mechanics would have been predicted since long (in fact it is the bastard calculus of the timeaues, or in Plotinus on the two matter) and QM would have been the proper defeat of Aristotle and the local victory of Plato. Instead on this, we still kill in the name of Ideas, we believe in religion war, and we demolish the planets in a sequel of lies. I trust life, even humans, they are resilient, but I do think sincerely that digging a bit more on the machine theology will help us to remember different conception of reality, and respect the rule of better mutual consistencies. Oh, and machine theology warns: any machine claiming being superior is inferior, Any machine claiming having meet god is a con machine. Any machine claiming truth is a liar. That might help. Mocking religion/theology *research* makes sense only for those who pretend they have found the only true religion. The god/not -god debate hides the universe/no-universe original debate, in the metaphysical, theological, spiritual inquiry. The physical laws are not just mathematically expressed, they have a deeper mathematical reason, which when understood explain the relation between the communicable 1p and the non communicable 1p. I think you are just not interested in metaphysics or theology, but then why defend physicalism. The physical science are neutral on this. Bruno > > Brent > If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for > instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning > quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, > concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it > can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. > --- David Hume >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Of course I always mean “fundamental science”. >>>>> >>>>> Theology isn't science, fundamental or otherwise. >>>> >>>> >>>> As I said, I use the term theology in the original sense of those who >>>> coined that term, and explain it. The god of Plato is the truth that we >>>> search. >>>> >>>> Theology is the fundamental science for anyone ready to assume that there >>>> is a reality. >>>> Since Gödel, we know that for rational machine, if there is a reality >>>> satisfying their belief, then the proposition “there is a reality >>>> satisfying my belief” makes them inconsistent. >>>> >>>> For such machine “I am consistent” and “there isa reality satisfying my >>>> beliefs” are synonymous. What I just alluded too is Gödel incompleteness >>>> theorem: <>t, that is ~[]f is true IFF there is a model satisfying t (and, >>>> as all models satisfy t, this is equivalent with saying that such a model >>>> exist). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > The original question of the greeks [......... >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I didn't hear what you said after that, I fell asleep. >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess you do that very often. There is no people more deaf than those >>>> who does not want to listen. >>>> >>>> But thanks for the collection of evidence that the non-agnostic atheists >>>> are just radical christians in disguise. >>>> >>>> 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] >>>> <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] >> <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.
