On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:12:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 2 Dec 2018, at 14:45, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 6:52:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Nov 2018, at 17:44, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-6, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:13:29 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *This may be a simplistic pov, but since there was IMO no Original Sin, >>>> there was no need for a Sacrifice for its forgiveness. Under this view, >>>> Christianity is overwhelmingly an illusion. And since Theology seems to be >>>> primarily an extended argument about the historical history and truths >>>> about Christianity, it too is essentially worthless; an extended wrangling >>>> over nothing. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> That comes from the 1500 years of brainwashing. I use theology in the >>>> sense of Plato, not the Gospel. Only atheists believe in JC, >>>> >>> >>> *Really? It seems you never met any Christians on a personal level. If >>> you did, you'd see how uninformed you are. AG* >>> >>> >>>> except for the TV evangelist, which are arguably con men. >>>> That was the goal of the Christian after 529. To make us forget that >>>> the original question of the greeks was about the existence of a (primary) >>>> physical universe. God exist by definition: it is, by definition, the >>>> truth >>>> we intuit to be larger than ourselves. >>>> >>> >>> *I really doubt the question about the nature of matter has been >>> forgotten. AG * >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> There is no truth outside of language, and matter's just another word for >> nothing left to lose. >> >> >> >> Language have no relation with truth a priori. Theories might have. >> Semantics are truth “by definition”, by relativising it to the notion of >> model/reality. >> >> Bruno >> >> > > > *Rorty* is right, I think: Better not to use the word "truth" at all. > > > In any argument, we cannot invoke “truth", nor “real”, nor “god” etc. All > this for the same basic reason which is justified in the Mechanist theory > by their provable non definability (à-la Tarski). > > > > > > It's just "justification". Or "judgment" (a type-theoretic term). > > > But that is close to the solipsist move. The fact that we cannot define > truth does not entail that some notion of truth does not make sense. In > particular, Peano arithmetic can already define an infinity of > approximation of truth, namely sigma_i and pi_i truth (the truth of the > sentences will a finite and fixed number of quantifier, as opposed to > finite sentences with an arbitrary finite number of quantifier). > > We can invoke truth, but we can develop meta-discourse relating truth to > theories, like we cannot invoke our own consciousness does not prevent us > to try theories about it. > It is a bit like “I cannot study my own brain”, but I can still infer some > theories of my brain by looking at the brain of others and then assuming > that I am not different. > > Bruno > > > A different perspective (!) of "truth" comes from - vs. PA (Peano arithmetic) - *PLT* (programming language theory - the legacy to a large extent of John C. Reynolds [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Reynolds - who was originally a theoretical physicist ], and sort of in parallel the whole type-theory gang). Rather than an external "god-like" notion of truth, truth is in the programming.
- pt -- 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.
