> On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:16, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:57:43 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > My guess, even if "young Crowell" objects, is that religion confers an > evolutionary advantage to those so, deluded. Thus they, we, breed more > offspring with this psychological trait, whilst the socialists doth diminish, > hence, their mad- rush by progressives, worldwide, to embrace the Islamists > as their chums, those wielders of the jihad. Chief enemy? Oh, any nationalist > of any type will do. In any case, as it confers evolutionary advantage, the > religions will evolve in their own Darwinian fashion, because around these > regions, them's the rules! Nationalism, can surely be suicidal among the > pig-ignorant, but among the more nuanced it too, can be am effective tool of > survival. With religions tuned toward survival, even yes, postmortem, > survival, as illusionary, as this may be; this also is a good evolutionary > trait! May, the Spaghetti Monster guide thy path! > > > For subsistence people the distinction between nature and spirits or > supernature does not exist, and these provide a narrative framework for > communicating information about the environment. We more modern people no > longer really have a need for mythic thinking for survival, but it is still > there. It has been used as a way to control people and society. > > As someone on the more progressive side of things, I have mixed sense about > Islam. I am opposed to any mistreatment of Muslims, but I see the religion as > frankly pernicious. I read a translation of the Koran after 9/11 and frankly > the only book I ever read that shocked with as much ideological horror is > Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. During the cold war we did not permit Russian > communists to emigrate to the US if they refused to renounce communism. I can > almost see the same with Islam, but for our Constitutional protection of > religious freedom. Some projections has Islam as the world majority world > religion by 2070, but based on other projections the world implosion may be > underway and Islam will just feast on the rotting corpse of the modern world > --- never to arise again. > > I think humanity is approaching a sort of peak of all that we may come to > know, prove, discover, create and invent. I think before long Homo sapiens > will be slouching back to a stone age. The whole period we are in with > civilization may be little more than an intermediate period between the > Pleistocene stone age where the Earth was rich and abundant and the next > stone age where Earth will be depleted and polluted. If so then mythic > thinking might again have real survival benefits. If Islam takes control of > the start into the next stone age, then frankly I could care less. > > My point with respect to this list though is that I think this is supposed to > be largely about scientific questions and subjects. I did not subscribe to > this in order to get screeds about Islam or any other religion.
*A* religion is only *a* theory in the metaphysical domain. As I said, it is a theorem of Peano arithmetic that universal machine or number have a rich religious background, in the theoretical sense that I just gave you in my preceding post. It is easy to prove incompleteness from the assumption of the existence of a universal machine, and thus from Church’s thesis. What is less easy is what correspond to Gödel’s *second* incompleteness theorem, or from Löb’s generalisation of it, which is that the machine themselves can prove their own "Gödel’s and Löbs theorem”, and in fact can recover those axiomatic of incompleteness, that is the Solovay Modal Logic G and G*. Those modal logics describe completely (at the propositional level) the logic of what any (sound) machine can prove about its provability and consistency abilities, (G) and extrapolate from soundness of Mechanism, cautiously (as we get near the “theological trap, but that is easy with G*, which axiomatise the truth that the machine is unable to prove, but can know, in some sense (different from the Theaetetus sense, but related). About itself, the logic cannot identify, for p partial computable, between p, []p, []p & p, []p & <>t, []p & <>t & p, despite G* proves them all equivalent. Here, one simple reality (the sigma_1 complete arithmetic, which is a very tiny part of the arithmetical reality) is shown to be seen is very different ways by any sound universal machine, and I give both simple thought experience, and formal development, to explain some of the modes plays the role of “physics”, once we assume mechanism, making the Mechanist hypothesis testable, and incidentally, rather well tested thanks to Quantum Mechanics. Newton Mechanics, if that was the physical theory considered as true, would be an impediment for Mechanist philosophy. That is the whole point I wanted to illustrate, we can proceed in that domain with the scientific attitude and method. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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/1474c97d-d10b-4ef5-839e-a8be0850b6be%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1474c97d-d10b-4ef5-839e-a8be0850b6be%40googlegroups.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/89D96243-FB64-47DF-8DAF-E31246036333%40ulb.ac.be.
