> On 3 Jun 2019, at 14:24, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:18 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is based on the act of > > faith > > Congratulations, you have now repeated that exact same schoolyard insult > (6.02*10^23) +1 times, you've broken through the mole barrier!
There is no insult. The theology of Aristotle is the theology which assumes that there is an ontological physical universe. You have invoked it repeatedly in many post. > > > Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 > > centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the > > 16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is > > very close to mathematics > > If a professional insurance salesman discovers a new comet with his backyard > hobby telescope does that mean insurance is very close to astronomy? I guess > for you it does mean that, after all you said atheism is just a slight > variation of Christianity and believe my saying Aristotle was the worst > physicist who ever lived means I have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of > faith. The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear enough to be shown wrong. Then its theology, that you embrace, is wrong too when we assume Mechanism, and testable too, although this needs Church-Turing, Gödel, etc. Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and mechanism, which is very close to the base of christianity, which assumes a creation (a physical material universe, like you) and a principle of self-finiteness (like with Mechanism). Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible. > > > I only search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a > > previews book. > > All you've done is state the problem, you still haven't explained how you > make the selection, you can't read all old books and can't read all new books > either: so how do you determine which new book is most likely to answer your > difficulties in understanding something? I do it by listening to comments and > reading reviews written by people who have given good book advice in the past > and I then use induction to conclude their new advice is probably good too. > And not one of those people who I respect said reading a 2000 year old book > will help anyone better understand any modern scientific or mathematical > problem. Not one. Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE FACTO. > > > Immortality refers not just to infinities, > > Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how to > do that is with infinity. That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/1E21AB58-D37F-407A-B72D-544C3E883F20%40ulb.ac.be.
