> On 19 Oct 2018, at 23:40, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 10/19/2018 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> 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. > > Right. And I assume you think you have advanced beyond Plato and Plotinus
I would not claim this. But Digital Mechanism allows to study mathematically introspection, and it confirms that Plato and Plotinus might be self-referentially correct in that regards, confirming some aspect of Mechanism, perhaps. > who did not even know Goedel's theorem or the Church-Turing thesis. If you read the Ennead on Numbers, you might be surprised. Without the Church forbidding research in the domain, they might have discovered the universal machine. Leibniz was also very close. > Yet you want us to read them. Just when people identify theology with superstition, which was already the “enemy” at that time. > No physicists tells his student to go read Einstein to learn relativity or to > read Heisenberg to learn quantum mechanics. That is false. Most scientist, in both logic and physics encourage the reading of the original papers. There are good selected papers books. > Referring back the founders texts is a mark of religion...not science. I beg to differ on this. Pseudo-Religion submit reason to text, but they want us not doing the research. It is bad faith. I don’t believe they believe in the domain. They want us to believe we know the solution, which is unscientific at the start. Bruno > > 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.
