> On 30 Oct 2019, at 10:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:27:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Oct 2019, at 18:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, >>>> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct >>>> which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes >>>> observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is >>>> solely and precisely that it is expected to work. >>>> --—John von Neumann >>> >>> >>> Science has stopped to seek the “why” since the “why” has been stolen by >>> criminals. Be it through the stealing of theology, like 1500 years ago, or >>> by the stealing of the health politics, like about 100 years ago. >>> >>> We can handle the why, once we accept o abandon the search of “certainty” >>> (which, with mechanism, is close to insanity). >> >> Religion starts by telling us "why". Lets see the making is work part first. > > > I would say that religion starts from the semantic or the intuition, and then > we make a theory trying to get that semantic, but it can never succeed > completely, so science do exploration, and has to correct its view again and > again. > > Religion is the (only) goal. > Science is the (only) mean. > > Both science and religion can become perverted when mixed with a tyranny or > with other roots of argument by authority, and dogma. > > Religion is the belief in (some) Truth. > (Fundamental) Science is the research of that Truth. > > Mechanism + Tarski implies that such a fundamental truth cannot be defined, > which is useful in the theory of consciousness (which cannot be defined > either, except by reference toward such a Truth). > > Bruno > > > > > Pragmatism's first rule: Don't talk about truth.
Don’t invoke truth, yes, that is part of the machine theology. But we can talk about it in the frame of metaphysical hypothesis (not necessarily ontological commitment, note). With mechanism, we don’t need more than the sigma_1 truth, which definable in Peano arithmetic, but then we have to admit we cannot define the whole arithmetical truth, and indeed, we can’t, no more that we can define the difference between finite and finite in any completely satisfiable way. The “truth” that we cannot define is the God of Plato and of the neopythagorean and neoplatonist theologies. We can indeed never invoke it, but we can “meta-talk” about it from diverse possible hypothesis. Mechanism makes everything simple and transparent here, for those willing to study a few books in Mathematical Logic. Bruno > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY> > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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/0b8c31bc-5c47-486e-ab0e-5a0ff7b2abe6%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0b8c31bc-5c47-486e-ab0e-5a0ff7b2abe6%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/9A0C8247-521A-4A40-9D7B-1CDC35D745C3%40ulb.ac.be.
