On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 1:17:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2020, at 11:56, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 23, 2020 at 7:47:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Feb 2020, at 18:40, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:55:39 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 20 Feb 2020, at 01:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/2020 12:15 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Wittgenstein is at the core really of *linguistic pragmatism * >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism >>> >>> Languages are tools. There is no truth "out there". >>> >>> >>> My view is that "true" means different things in different contexts. >>> >>> >>> And in different modes (of self-reference). The platonists dis >>> understand that the absolute truth requires faith in something beyond “my >>> consciousness” or “consciousness” (to take into account Terren Suydam’ >>> remark). >>> >> >> Wittgestein up to now still has the upper hand with those old arguments >> over anybody proposing science based ontological packages metaphysically: >> language will seduce people to overgeneralize, to confuse personal >> mysticism with reality, to engage in false equivalencies between terms used >> in formal contexts and everyday use of language, scientism etc. Slowly, >> yours truly is coming around to the idea that folks agreeing on >> ontology/reality/religion, which would guide research in some allegedly >> correct direction; spilling over positive effects into the world... that >> Wittgenstein may prove correct in that this is a confused product of >> muddled armchair thinking, not because of his generally negative stance, >> but because there seem to be positive developments out there that he >> couldn't have informed those arguments with. >> >> I see/predict metaphysics shifting from the naive armchair forms of >> identity, reality, matter etc. practiced here on this list with profound >> erudition, walking in circles for 20 years now (Wittgenstein says thousands >> of years) to optimization and more efficient pursuit of value and benefit >> questions instead, through say orchestration of highly sophisticated forms >> of organization applied to education, governing, finance, technology, >> problem solving, applied or theoretical etc. that are permissionless, >> universally accessible, require no hierarchy of politics, charlatan >> experts, control freaks, their sycophants, and bibles of some Messiah >> achieving miracles such as eternal life, self-duplication etc. >> >> Metaphysical setups that place less emphasis on truth, trust, power, >> control, or proof and more emphasis on "can entities such as ourselves be >> highly organized, solve specific survival problems over short and long >> terms, without trusting each other + instead assuming that folks will be >> opportunistic and idealistic?" Example: we don't agree on what reality may >> be, but we do agree on the need for habitable living space in the long >> term, nutrition, water, health, limiting self-destruction, expensive wars, >> standards of living etc. quite clearly. There ARE more appropriate politics >> and economics on the horizon. Metaphysics here, shifting our old-school >> conceptions of what first principles are, and you'd refute Wittgenstein >> instead of running from him. Engineering incentive and not what the game is >> but *how* the game of life on this planet could be. >> >> >>> >>> About this, it is clear to me that in “I think thus I am”, Descartes use >>> the “first person” I. Indeed he start from the doubt. Dubito ergo cogito, >>> cogito ergo sum. Descartes did not prove the existence of Descartes, bit of >>> his own consciousness, hoping others can do the same reasoning for >>> themselves. Consciousness always refer to a first person experience >>> implicitly: like God (truth) it is not a thing. >>> >> >> You concede to Terren that "true means different things in different >> contexts” >> >> >> Yes, that is well illustrated in the different type of knowledge, (like >> p, []p, []p & p, …), but also in the infinity of “[]”, different for each >> machine/number. >> >> >> >> but everyday like clockwork you still barrage the list with your use of >> "large truth, 3p, reality that cannot be named, mechanism is incompatible >> with physicalism" and all the rest of it. >> >> >> I just assume the Mechanist hypothesis, and derive from it that we cannot >> assume more than elementary arithmetic for the ontology, and then the >> phenomenology (mathematically obtained, but intuitively explainable with >> variate thought experiences) shows the appearance of those variate notion >> of truth. >> I don’t claim mechanism is true, of course, but I derive its >> consequences, and I show that some are testable. >> >> Bruno >> >> > Wittgenstein did appeal to a language form that is close to or might be > compared to first order logic. > > > He got the 0-order logic, somehow. Proved sound and complete by Emil Post > (before or after, I am not sure). > > > > Generally language used and how we reference language to objects is beyond > this, and it has some element of semantics. This does take one potentially > into the Loeb theorem, such as in Boolos and Jeffery's book and the > connection to semantic soundness. > > > > No doubt on this. This is what I have exploited to derive the theology and > physics of the universal number. Löb’s theorem plays a key role, and > Solovay “final” theorems do the trick, at the propositional modal level, so > we get already the propositional full logic of the subject (and we got > Intuitionist knowledge logic) and of the material object (we get quantum > logic, classical and intuitionist). > > The point is that with Mechanism, physics is derivable from the psychology > or theology of machines or numbers. That makes theology into a popperian > science, that is, refutable experimentally. >
The theology where the Nazi can claim: "I am doing the multiverse a favor by committing atrocities, thereby removing a horrible variant from the plenum of branches." We should celebrate them as the genuine multiverse socialists for bearing that burden. That's what Adolf meant with national socialism! He was a multiverse guy apparently. :) They also like ontologically pure species, classes, hierarchies, primary beings/ideas and you've demonstrated here, a willingness to want to teach them patiently with infinite consideration. Every vague singular universe assumption with naive progress narratives is philosophically more "advanced". Christian theology uses a prohibition: "Do not kill!", which is at least life affirming in its core. Christian theology also allows for monstrous things called apologies and forgiveness, so that somebody who committed a horrible act may aspire towards a self that doesn't commit such acts. Self-Improvement and self-help gurus, even ones with mechanist theologies, are apparently legal. In mechanism, as I've learned, everybody committed original sin and is tarnished from the start, on account of multiple subject scenario and everybody being copies of one another. This is a straight philosophical diagonal: pleasant platonic ontology but it relativizes the destruction of life, similarly to other multiverse arguments, while being amenable to opportunistic-purist gangster takeovers as outlined here and in the post you choose to ignore, because "we don't know!". Indeed, this style of "arguing" implies a need to ignore dissenting views, which we see in current politics as well. With the total lack of life affirming properties due to infinite indecision and unknowability, you can post in the respectable, serious, sophisticated, technical style that you apparently need to demonstrate to yourself and others daily all you want. You can't affirm life nor evade the cynical implications I sketch in passing here. Not even to the poor level of outdated primitive Christian standards, while moralizing everybody else on their lack of respect for what you see as everybody's "true ignorance" in terms of matter, body mind problem etc. Plus, you see your own discourse as somehow truer than everybody else's: when the whole linguistic world assesses every discourse as a type of fiction, similar to Wittgenstein's language games, with assumptions, world views, and biases of its practitioners baked in; the assumption is that your world view is somehow written on the eternal walls of arithmetic, and that a privileged audience may behold the sacred servitor (it's "servant" in English by the way, and the usage archaic) being the most advanced practitioner of their own what? Their own ignorance? Is it a coincidence then, that mechanism is best practiced in the company of those without command of the relevant subjects instead of specialists? I would argue it isn't, for whenever a mechanist encounters dissent, all they need to do is post forward and not look back. To forget and burn the inconvenient arguments is - what can I say? - the mark of more genuine science and theology. PGC -- 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/f4174fd4-55f1-40ec-bb58-fe18d7bf18f6%40googlegroups.com.
