On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 9:12:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 14:45, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <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 <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> 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 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.

Reply via email to