> On 29 Jan 2020, at 12:03, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 6:12:31 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 1/28/2020 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Aristotle: Reality is what we see. > > Plato: what we see might be the shadow of a simpler reality > > (mathematical, musical, theological, …). > > > > Science is really born from that important platonic doubt. > > Nonsense. Religious mysticism was born from platonic doubt. Science was > already born in the school of Thales of Miletus. Aristotle at least > believed that observation was a source of knowledg; while platonists > depreacted it as illusory shadows of reality. St Agustine made > Platonism Christian and Thomas Aquinas made Aristotleanism Christian, > and those two, with the power of the Church behind them dominated > Western intellectual thought for nine centuries, known as "The Dark > Ages" for a good reason. > > In spite of the problems with Platonism and Aristotelianism I don't think > they are that pernicious. Plato, who we really have a vague idea about, may > have been a central man and he came up with some mathematics of the polytopes > in 3-dimensions. These were the regular polytopes of the tetrahedron, which > is self dual, the cube dual to the octahedron and the dodecahedron dual to > the icosahedron. He was a follower of Socrates, and all we know of Socrates > was written by Plato. In these writings he came up with this idea about the > relationship between physical reality and the epistemic domain of > mathematics. We really do not know much more and it is very likely, as in the > tradition of scribes in the ancient world, much of his writings, Symposia, > Euthryphro etc, have a heavy contribution from his circle of associates. It > is possible that Plato is a place name for followers of Socrates and all > attributed to Plato were written by the "Platonists." Much the same is > probably the case with Pythagoras and his cult-like followers called the > Pythagoreans. The Bible has much the same, and the various books of the Bible > with names are written heavily by follower scribes writing in that name. With > Aristotle there is more reason to think his writings are central to a better > known figure. While Aristotle's ideas of physics are wrong in many ways, they > are in some ways a bit more rational than what Plato came up with.
OK. > > Some writers of the New Testament were knowledgeable of Plato and Aristotle, > The Gospel of John is very Platonic and curiously the Book of Revelations > attributed to John is Aristotelian. This elevated Plato and Aristotle to > great heights, while Thales, Democrates etc were eclipsed. This intertwining > of Plato and Aristotle with Christianity is what brought these philosophies > so deeply into mysticism. The more mystic, the less wrong they are, at least if we compare with the mathematical theology of the universal machine, that I described in detail in most of my papers. To be sure, by Plato, I mean the Plato of the Parmenides and the Theaetetus, a bit of the Republic and the Timaeus. Plato was just a researcher, he use Socrates to make dialog. Unlike Gerson (a scholar expert on Plato) I do not identify Plato with Socrates. And I “correct” every details through the universal machine interpretation of “reality”. As this is pure mathematics, it helps to get the coherent picture, even if some people dislike the idea that the theory of everything is just elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent), but this at least explains consciousness, qualia, quanta and their relations, without adding any non necessary magic. Is it true? No scientist can know. But we can test it experimentally, and QM confirms the most (annoying? Startling?) aspect of Mechanism, notably the many-histories *aspect* of reality, the quantum threshold, the quantum logics, etc. I will make a post about how I see now the way space appears, It is not easily, I need the full 4 + 4*infinity modes of machine self-reference. What people misses here the most is the “simple” fact that elementary arithmetic is Turing-Universal, and the existence of all halting and non halting computations, including their redundancy and relative measure, is an arithmetical reality (well above the computable part of it). The very thing that I have been asked to removed from my thesis as judged to be to much simple to figure in a thesis (which is nonsense, as in an interdisciplinary thesis: nothing is evident, and everything must be explained, and all hypotheses must be made explicit). Since then, except professional logicians (and even just among those knowing theoretical computer science), very few people seems to get this “simple” point, already made by Gödel 1931, in some footnote though. 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/98be4e4e-d26c-4301-88e4-95914aa57064%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98be4e4e-d26c-4301-88e4-95914aa57064%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/F8177326-3365-46FE-9E42-91820FFD94CB%40ulb.ac.be.
