> On 29 May 2019, at 20:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/29/2019 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 28 May 2019, at 22:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/28/2019 12:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> The universal machine explains already that all machine invoking word like >>>> “God”, “Truth” “Real” are con artist. >>>> >>>> And that rings as rather plausible to me. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>> Strange remark for someone who invokes arithmetical realism and claims that >>> it is God. >> Assuming mechanism, including admitting that mechanism cannot be proved and >> required an act of faith, and using the neoplatonist standard definitions. >> Then, that is justified as being a part of G* \ G, so indeed, I was close to >> the theological trap. But I did not fall in it, by insisting that it >> requires some faith, and explains that a doctor who would claim “we know >> that we are machine” is indeed a con artist. > > Everyone who promotes belief in a reality and a God says that it requires an > act of faith.
A Reality and/or a God. Yes, and with Gödel theorems we have an explanation (perhaps wrong, but well motivated when we assume mechanism), which is that not machine (identified by its set of rational believable propositions) can prove its semantics, or can prove that it has a model (equivalent by Gödel’s completeness theorem). Yes, God is defined by <whatever is at the origin of what we experience>, it is the fundamental reality, and by incompleteness we cannot prove the existence of such a reality (if it is rich enough to encompass the behaviour of the machine). That explains why when a machine (Löbian) look inward, it develop an insight into something that the machine will judge being transcendant and required an act of faith. The other reason to use the theological vocabulary is that the theology of the machine is not something new: he was found by many neoplatonist. Read Plotinus Enneads,(translated in Arab with the title “theology of Aristotle”, actually!) or Proclus’ treatise “theology”, etc. It is plausibly not a coincidence: they were both mystic and rationalist, and they probably just introspect themselves genuinely. Mathematicians homogeninize the concept. Even strong atheism is a theology as it claims that “there is no God”, which is a theological proposition. It does not makes sense, because they usually believe in a physical primary universe, which is just an exemple of “God” (that thing at the origin of all the rest), even if an impersonal one, like the Tao for the Chinese. I use “theology” to remind everyone that “materialism” also requires an act of faith, and to hemp the understanding of Mechanism, which needs the “YD” act of faith, and where “YD” can be shown inconsistent if taken as an axiom in the fundamental theory (like self-consistency). Bruno > > Brent > >> >> 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 [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d70a40db-0ec9-8286-a1e1-a8e56e06d0fd%40verizon.net. > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33848157-a2e0-64e0-6253-e3fc9144f3d4%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2A2FDFAE-647C-4872-93C0-72C3B9E122F5%40ulb.ac.be.
