On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If there was some deep existential problem you wanted to know more about >> I can understand why you would want to discuss it with a mathematician or a >> scientist, but why would you ask a expert on religion? Why would you expect >> a theologian to give a better answer to the question "why is there >> something rather than nothing?" than for example, an expert on gardening or >> an expert on plumbing? > > > *> Because theology was at the start suppose to handle this subject and > type of questioning,* > And in that theology failed spectacularly, not only did it fail to provide any answers it couldn't even find the right questions to ask. > *and in fact, it all begun with Pythagorus’ proposal that everything is > explained by the natural numbers.* > And in that Pythagoras also failed, he couldn't even explain why the square root of 2 is irrational and thought one of the most important philosophical questions that needed answering is why there are only 7 planets in the universe, 5 if you don't count the sun and the moon. *> Then Digital Mechanism (aka computationalism) comes back to explaining > indeed everything with natural numbers . * > And nothing can understand those explanations unless there is something that can process natural numbers, and for that you need a brain, and for that you need matter that obeys the laws of physics. > *>For example it can be proved that all axioms of Robinson Arithmetic(*) > (RA) are independent of each other. None can be proved from the remaining > one, and only the full seven axioms are Turing emulable.* > Matter that is organized in such a way that it operates according to Robinson Arithmetic (and of course the laws of physics) is Turing emulable, but naked axioms of Robinson Arithmetic are not Turing emulable, they are not anything emulable because they can't *DO* anything. In the same way matter that has a correspondence with the blueprints of a 747 airliner can fly you across the Pacific Ocean, but you can't fly across anything on blueprints alone. *>The idea that theology is not the fundamental science is an idea which* [...] Forget fundamental, the idea that theology is a science of any sort is idiotic . 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1VDMyjDV4mss%3Dy6_9iwWMjg1JggPZiYyu1_5tVQwNOKw%40mail.gmail.com.
