subject:"Allah\: the One and Only Deity"

> On 3 Jun 2019, at 04:59, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
>>> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
>>> matter exists, 
>> 
>> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.
> 
> The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the 
> ‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest: 
> https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html 
>  
> 

That is still rather Aristotelian. The first half of the Quran is better than 
that, it contains the just reference to Judaism, and you can feel the openness 
to neoplatonism, where indeed there was something deeper than the physical 
reality at play at the origine of the physical reality (the how and why being 
indeed addressed in the Quran).
The second half of the Quran is more problematic, and in my opinion, not 
written by the same people, or something happened to them. It is problematic 
both on the metaphysical level, but also on the ethical level, doubly so if it 
is taken literally (as it contains basic hate speech  toward non-muslims, 
especially the jews, even some call for murdering some people, or sentences 
which can be interpreted easily that way).

That is obviously even aggravated by the fact that many muslims do kill many 
people today, and this by invoking Allah. The media seems to skip this, but 
there is an actual genocide of christians in many muslims countries, and they 
refer to the Quran and even worst Hadith. 

The canonical theology of the machine (the Solovay logic G*) explains why 
theology, even as a science, contains a trap. It shows that the frontier 
between Enlightenment and madness is very thin.That is wise, in the ideal world 
of the self-referentially correct machine, the wise say mute and trust the 
big-one-who-has-no-name to make any religious advertising. Allah is being name 
and words, and religious text can help when not taken literally, and becomes a 
source of burdens and suffering when taken literally.

G* proves <>[]f   (the consistency of inconsistency)

G proves <>t -> <>[]f  (if I am consistent then it is consistent that I am 
inconsistent, if I am not mad, then it is possible that I am mad).

With Mechanism, the closer to Allah you are, the more modest and openminded you 
become.

Bruno

> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AEC81733-1E87-42CF-B373-E89F726F36A6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
>> comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
>> “circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.
>> 
>> To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to 
>> get the things making the circle into a reality.
> The attitude of a scholastic: I will make reality out of axioms.


All what I say comes from the antipode of that idea.

All what I say comes from the fact the arithmetical reality is not obtainable 
from any (axiomatisable, effective) theory.

The arithmetical reality is beyond all effective theory. You can formalise it 
entirely in second order logic, but then you loose the effectiveness and the 
notion of proof parts from chekability.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ed3e3b-d814-9268-41d2-80ebb2a23abb%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/96E63E55-4D63-4A27-8775-1FC98878AE2E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity


> On 2 Jun 2019, at 20:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/2019 12:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people 
>> believed this by ostentation.
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  
> One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
 Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
 definition makes sense.
>>> Ostensive definitions are semantic. 
>> OK.
>> 
>> But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires 
>> an act of fait in some undefinable reality. 
>> 
>> 
>>> You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
>>> learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have 
>>> not believed anything about it's overall shape.
>> Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality 
>> (called God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, 
>> but propose theories and means to make sense of them.
> 
> You seem to be in a bubble of rationalism.  Everything is about axioms and 
> assumptions and words.  Ostensive definitions point outside that bubble.  
> They are fuzzy, but they are not assumptions...they are based on, consist of, 
> evidence.


Given that I tend empiricism, and that I explain that it is the observation of 
the universe which counts, that is an astonishing remark.

Mechanism explains the appearance of the physical universe from an arithmetical 
web of quantum-like statistically interfering computations, and the observation 
of nature confirms mechanism, and add doubts to the idea that a physical 
universe is a thing for itself, independent of the number's experiences.




> 
>> 
>> When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
>> personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, 
>> shows the consequences and the means to test the theory.
>> 
>> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
>> matter exists, 
> 
> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.


OK. Then we agree. My critics has never been on physics, only on physicalism, 
and only when taken together with Digital Mechanism.

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
>> and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, because there are 
>> evidence and reason why the brain has not been prepared/“programmed”, 
>> through evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 
>> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
>> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
>> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can 
>> have a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still 
>> in the 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I 
>> guess to just mock it.
>> 
>> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
>> vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
>> God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
>> physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
>> metaphysical brainwashing.
>> 
>> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
>> can show it to us.
> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
 Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
 and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
 reality is primitive.
 
 
 
 
> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
> matter of faith…
 Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now 
 require faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
 
 
 
> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of 
> faith.
 There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
 the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and 
 stating neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and 
 saying “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is 
 when some aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the 
 truth of an hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff 
 with an elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without 
 jumping.
 
 
 
 
>> The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that 
>>

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]


> On 3 Jun 2019, at 03:27, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these 
> ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's Physics, which is all wrong 
> really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It 
> is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. At 
> least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and prayed 
> about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, for it 
> can well be that we are making now similar category errors with things. It 
> may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; it can help 
> inform us where we are wrong.

Yes, and that works as long as the science/philosophy/theology is not used for 
special interest, which quickly leads to lies, like “big-pharma” has 
illustrated with health, and like all institutionalised religions illustrated 
with their dogma.

I don’t believe that science is a thing. Science emerges from the scientific 
attitude of some humans, and that attitude can be hold in any domain of 
inquiry, except in totalitary regime or dictatorships of course.

Bruno 



> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal > 
> wrote:
> 
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you 
> > have not even try to read them
> 
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of 
> study I am personally very interested in.
> 
> > That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative 
> > sense.
> 
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be 
> able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?
> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8defbd8-b416-4d75-9aaf-3d2dd8c6d80f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E336CB24-A7C9-4144-A0C7-0D9FF355E7E5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 17:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you 
> > have not even try to read them
> 
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field of 
> study I am personally very interested in.

Mathematicians have been wrong on the harmonic series (1+1/2+1/3+…) for 18 
centuries. It is a catholic abbe, Oresme, who solved the problem in the 
16th/17th century, illustrating that the neoplatonist idea that theology is 
very close to mathematics was still in the (catholic) air. You would have 
dismissed it as you seem to judge people from the category they belong too 
(old, ancient, believer, etc.).

If mathematicians can be wrong 18 centuries on a specific question like the sum 
of the inverse of the positive integers, which was not consider as heretic or 
against the authorities at any time (unlike Cantor Set theory, for example), 
why would it be so astonishing that we are wrong in theology, a field stolen by 
the state since long.

Answer: may be because you have espoused the theology of Aristotle, which is 
based on the act of faith that there is an irreducible (to something simpler) 
ontological/primary physical universe. And that is not a problem, perhaps. But 
it is inconsistent if you believe/assume both a primary physical universe and 
Digital Mechanism.

> 
> > That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your pejorative 
> > sense.
> 
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to be 
> able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?

I work top down. My initial (childhood) question was “is the amoeba immortal?”. 
I found quickly (in library, bookshop) the book by James Watson “Molecular 
Biology of the Gene”, which will be my “bible” for a long time, and I will 
understand/conceive that the Amoeba’s self-reproduction is a “mechanical” 
phenomenon.

But “immortal” refers to infinity, on which I will inquire too, and will 
discover some book on Set Theory and Cantor to put light on this, up to the 
discovery of Angel & Newman little book on Gödel’s proof, which will make me 
realise that the conceptual solution of the self-reproduction problem is 
already provided in the arithmetical relation (to be sure, at that time I did 
not know Church-Thesis, and the continuum appearing in chemistry will make me 
doubt if the arithmetical solution present in Gödel’s proof could be applied to 
amoebas. But that will decide me to study mathematics after high school.

Then digging on this, I will be led to Kleene’s “Introduction to 
Metamathematics”, and meditate on Church’s thesis for a long time. 

Etc. 

So I work top-down, starting from the amoeba immortality question, and I only 
search a new book when I have difficulties in understanding a previews book. 
Immortality refers not just to infinities, but to consciousness, survival, etc, 
so it took not much time before I discover the field of theology, and that the 
Gödelian limitation theorems (which are based on that conceptual solution of 
self-reproduction, a point made clear by Kleene) provides clear (perhaps wrong, 
or different from what the author intended, but clear) arithmetical 
interpretation to neoplatonism (but also Taoism, especially Lie-Tseu).

Fundamental science is interdisciplinary. There are many books, but starting 
from a rather concrete problem (how finite things can refer to themselves and 
what they can know about that), the road (the sequence of books) is paved 
almost deterministically.

Bruno 

> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M0FAZKdeMXoj2NPk5gBqdz6kyndUOXkoq5uv4%3Dg%2BmZA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-06-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:17:59 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to 
> grasp the problem of relating first person description and third  person 
> theory. Ot out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between 
> the subjective and some possible objective knowledge.
>
>
> Bruno 
>
>
This is perhaps the biggest of philosophical errors generated by physicists 
in history.


The contrarian view:

[If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then one 
sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic 
processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also 
how closely the two resemble each other.]

via Rafael Sorkin

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/59c312e9-3f9b-4d90-b130-fdada631fef0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread Samiya Illias

On 02-Jun-2019, at 11:38 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:

>> Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
>> matter exists, 
> 
> A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to primitive matter.

The Quran does mention the existence of something before and beyond the 
‘universe/ cosmos/ space’ we live in. This may be of interest: 
https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2019/01/space-before-and-beyond.html 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5FA9BBDF-1EAB-46A1-9270-0C9935CA13EF%40gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-06-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell

As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these 
ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's *Physics*, which is all wrong 
really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It 
is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. 
At least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and 
prayed about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, 
for it can well be that we are making now similar category errors with 
things. It may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; 
it can help inform us where we are wrong.

LC

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that 
>> you have not even try to read them
>
>
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field 
> of study I am personally very interested in.
>
> *> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your 
>> pejorative sense.*
>
>
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to 
> be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8defbd8-b416-4d75-9aaf-3d2dd8c6d80f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 6/2/2019 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
“circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.

To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to get 
the things making the circle into a reality.

The attitude of a scholastic: I will make reality out of axioms.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ed3e3b-d814-9268-41d2-80ebb2a23abb%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 6/2/2019 12:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed this 
by ostentation.

Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
can't believe a proposition by ostentation.

Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
definition makes sense.

Ostensive definitions are semantic.

OK.

But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires an 
act of fait in some undefinable reality.



You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not believed 
anything about it's overall shape.

Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality (called 
God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, but propose 
theories and means to make sense of them.


You seem to be in a bubble of rationalism.  Everything is about axioms 
and assumptions and words.  Ostensive definitions point outside that 
bubble.  They are fuzzy, but they are not assumptions...they are based 
on, consist of, evidence.




When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, shows 
the consequences and the means to test the theory.

Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
matter exists,


A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to /*primitive*/ matter.

Brent


and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, because there are 
evidence and reason why the brain has not been prepared/“programmed”, through 
evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.


Bruno










Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have a 
conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 19th 
century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock it.

I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the vocabulary. 
For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not God, but 
“consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse physics and 
metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of metaphysical 
brainwashing.

If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you can 
show it to us.

Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?

Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* and 
X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical reality is 
primitive.





As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a matter 
of faith…

Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable




except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.

There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically the 
difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating neutral 
or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying “yes” to the 
doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some aspect of your 
first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an hypothesis. It is 
the difference between jumping from a cliff with an elastic, and just assuming 
the elastic is good enough without jumping.





The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics is 
the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an evidence 
that reality is psychological.

You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So you are merely 
inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to criticize it and pretend you are 
above it.

?

Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.

Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous circle.


We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe that 
it cannot be recovered from other principle.

Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.

No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively.  
It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.


I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept 
that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-06-02 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you
> have not even try to read them

Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient
literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a
2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field
of study I am personally very interested in.

*> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your
> pejorative sense.*

Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03
*10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd
done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to
be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine
which books are worth your time and which books are not?

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M0FAZKdeMXoj2NPk5gBqdz6kyndUOXkoq5uv4%3Dg%2BmZA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 13:43, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal Wrote:
>  
> >> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even 
> >> less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read 
> >> every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.
>  
> > You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. 
> 
> Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value than 
> others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book, will 
> be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does not 
> need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. 

It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to grasp 
the problem of relating first person description and third  person theory. Ot 
out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between the subjective 
and some possible objective knowledge.

But that is just because the theological paradigm has been unchallenged since a 
long time. Before that, people (I mean the intellectuals) were totally aware of 
that problem, and indeed platonism was already a reaction toward the belief 
that realty is fundamentally, or ontological material. 

The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have 
not even try to read them, and that add evidence that you seem unable to doubt 
your material hypothesis. That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is 
“religion” in your pejorative sense. Doing metaphysics or theology with the 
scientific attitude consists first in doubting all possible theories, and 
providing some test to evaluate them. There is no other method. Deciding that 
metaphysics *cannot* be done in this way, is the usual means by dogmatic people 
to conserve the metaphysics of their time, and make it unchallengeable. It 
keeps up the obscurantist statu quo.

Bruno 

> 
> > That is hardly rational.
> 
> You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you 
> rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is 
> time that could have been spent reading some other book. 

> 
>  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RrB9jJ_8QuzPqS%2BqtMmTQ%2BPUQCwpRH7MCtGsyUesBWw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B290C9AC-2EC6-4428-8A69-B0963C22B701%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-06-02 Thread John Clark

Bruno Marchal Wrote:


> >> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even
>> less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read
>> every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.
>
>

*> You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. *


Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value
than others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book,
will be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does
not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.

*> That is hardly rational.*


You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you
rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is
time that could have been spent reading some other book.

 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RrB9jJ_8QuzPqS%2BqtMmTQ%2BPUQCwpRH7MCtGsyUesBWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread PGC

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
> > No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined 
> ostensively. 
>
> A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, 
> that we are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity 
> of them. 
>
>
>
> > It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. 
>
> But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your 
> hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a 
> theory, but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with 
> possible facts. 
>

No need for faith in realities means that personal mysticism is up to each 
one of us and cannot be weaponized by folks like you, who may choose to do 
so to promote personal positions and credibility. Nobody needs that to 
proceed with science or metaphysics. One can assume some purposefully 
undefined pluralism and be done with hierarchical follies, their fascisms, 
sidestepping problems of the one and the many, including the deification of 
some lonesome subject who would think through existence, give it conditions 
and arbitrary hierarchies with heavy ethical burdens that may be 
conceptually unsolvable anyway, as well as perform the gullible pacifying 
Christian things, like accounting for the subject's origins and losing 
ourselves in defending unclear notions like consciousness and souls.

Purists and fanatics will always try to sell us the "truth thing" via some 
dialectical strategy of those bad other guys, or mistakes of the world, 
filled with physicalist fanatics for example, and will always emerge as 
messiahs insulting every intelligence in existence. And this doesn't cut it 
as metaphysics anymore. It's the conspiracy trick. Rhetorical flourish. 
Concrete metaphysics/philosophy will never be obtained by weighing the 
inadequacy of some supposed enemy or ideal, your physicalists for example 
against the inadequacy of the arithmetical realist and all the shit he 
can't explain => such metaphysics just concedes its inadequacy. Bad build 
quality. Even with infinite posts, Bruno. Purists will fail to account 
credibly for too many things and guys like me will always find the dirty 
secrets, your prostitutes, zombies, fridges in the sky, rhetorical 
trickery... and we'll call them out when you play preacher of science, 
truth, probity, and arbiter of morals and inquiry for others. 

You'll never get the perfect singular thing by correcting a generality like 
some supposed physicalism with another unclear generality like some 
supposed arithmetical realism. And if you think you can, you'll need an 
extraordinary amount of convincing evidence beyond speculative hunches and 
generalized logical fits and possible validities. All of Bruce's, Brent's, 
and all phycisists' Christmas wishes have to be fulfilled and optimized. 
You have not achieved this, therefore "mechanism" is insufficient and 
unconvincing for now. 

And guess what: not assuming some reality assumes your ability to explore 
and share your own mysticism. It values that to such an extent that it 
should be a general duty of citizenship but specifically not to impose a 
nativism or purism in the way others perceive the world and the commons. 
More genuine modesty and respect than "mechanism" on its infinite 
ontological police trip. A pluralism of diversity, aiming towards the 
benevolent avoidance of corruption and crime with a more or less pronounced 
emphasis of the value of the separation of powers and independent inquiry. 
And such metaphysics can have practical application because the environment 
is unclear and unspecified! 

Besides jazz and the pursuit of sexiness, we green buildings, walls, and 
roofs. We do biodiversity studies and try to preserve systemic plurality, 
not for some ideological trip, but because plurality of species in an area 
prevents desertification. Survival in style, open for optimization. Similar 
in politics and education: we don't need monoculture, puristic hierarchical 
thinking. That's corporations and spy industry running on cynical 
metaphysics of advertising and power, which places science in hiding. It's 
well-organized abuse even if all those folks have good hearts. And without 
some purist perfectionism we can still make deals with their agents, treat 
them with respect the way we treat ourselves, collaborate on a level where 
we get the most for common futures as far as we can see, confront them on 
what we believe to be the central issues, and work to limit our usual 
tendencies towards self-destruction in short term gain. With all the crazy 
shit out there, I also see more and more folks relating to these notions.

And that's infinitely better for than whining about perfect ontologies and 
their/our credibility. Doing it: everybody thinking,

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
 this by ostentation.
>>> 
>>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
>>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>> 
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
> 
> Ostensive definitions are semantic.  You point down where you're standing and 
> say "Earth"...that's how children learn words.  And having defined Earth as 
> that which we stand on we have not believed anything about it's overall shape.

I answered this, then send the mail to quickly. I add some more comment below. 


> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
 omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
 correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have 
 a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 
 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to 
 just mock it.
 
 I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
 vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
 God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
 physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
 metaphysical brainwashing.
 
 If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
 can show it to us.
>>> 
>>> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
>> 
>> Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
>> and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
>> reality is primitive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
>>> matter of faith…
>> 
>> Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
>> faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.
>> 
>> There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
>> the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating 
>> neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying 
>> “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some 
>> aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an 
>> hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an 
>> elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics 
 is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an 
 evidence that reality is psychological.
>>> 
>>> You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
>>> don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So 
>>> you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to 
>>> criticize it and pretend you are above it.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
> 
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle.


To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
“circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.

To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to get 
the things making the circle into a reality.

Then with mechanism, you can choose any presentation of the sigma_1 
arithmetical reality, be it the elementary axioms of arithmetic, or the 
combinators.




> 
>> 
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>> 
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
>> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
>> recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.
> 
> No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively. 

A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, that we 
are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity of them.



> It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.

But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your 
hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a theory, 
but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with possible facts.




> 
>> 
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
 this by ostentation.
>>> 
>>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
>>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>> 
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
> 
> Ostensive definitions are semantic. 

OK.

But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires an 
act of fait in some undefinable reality. 


> You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
> learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not 
> believed anything about it's overall shape.

Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality (called 
God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, but propose 
theories and means to make sense of them.

When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, shows 
the consequences and the means to test the theory.

Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
matter exists, and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, 
because there are evidence and reason why the brain has not been 
prepared/“programmed”, through evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.


Bruno




> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
 omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
 correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have 
 a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 
 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to 
 just mock it.
 
 I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
 vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
 God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
 physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
 metaphysical brainwashing.
 
 If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
 can show it to us.
>>> 
>>> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
>> 
>> Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
>> and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
>> reality is primitive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
>>> matter of faith…
>> 
>> Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
>> faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.
>> 
>> There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
>> the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating 
>> neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying 
>> “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some 
>> aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an 
>> hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an 
>> elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics 
 is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an 
 evidence that reality is psychological.
>>> 
>>> You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
>>> don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So 
>>> you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to 
>>> criticize it and pretend you are above it.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
> 
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle.
> 
>> 
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>> 
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
>> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
>> recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.
> 
> No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively.  
> It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.
> 
>> 
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept 
>> that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in principle.
>> 
>> With

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 15:10, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> "The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance and 
> being able to control its course”.
> 
> > The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
> > parabola and should never been taken literally.
> 
> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
> away his many many lies.
>  
> > Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
> > christian who believe in the anything as naive.
> 
> You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
> C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although I have not personally met them.

That is possible. Maybe the European christians are more protected from 
irrationalism than the American one, where there is that evangelical permanent 
shows.




>  
> > You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might 
> > change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.
> 
> I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a book 
> written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than 
> I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use 
> judgement and be selective.

You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. That is hardly 
rational.

Bruno 



> 
>  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AB139B1B-698F-4DA7-BA45-B554733ED556%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 09:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
>>> this by ostentation.
>> 
>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
> 
> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
> definition makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
> 
> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe that 
> it cannot be recovered from other principle.
> 
> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
> recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.
> 
> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept 
> that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in principle. 
> 
> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain, in 
> principle, by very elementary arithmetic.
> 
> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what are 
> the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole picture.
> 
> And accepting some set of fundamental principles is just to adopt a 
> hypothesis -- not necessarily an act of faith.

I agree.


> Faith, characteristically, enters when we stake our life on something.

OK.



> So your "mechanism" is very much an act of faith,

Yes. That is the main reason why I prefer “theology” in place of “psychology”. 
That is confirmed by the proof/truth gap due to machine incompleteness (which 
applied also on many non mechanical arithmetical beings).

If the “doctor” says “we know that the brain is machine”, it is automatically a 
“con artist” (or someone talking colloquially to be short).



> since it requires staking your life on the knowledge and skill of the Dr. But 
> physicalism is not an act of faith, because our life in no way depends on 
> whether we adopt that hypothesis or not.

That is right. But the mechanist hypothesis, with our without the personal act 
of faith, leads to the abandon of physicalism (or rationalism). Once we assume 
mechanism, a believer in physicalism has to explain how a “physical ontological 
reality” prevent us to belong (in the first person undetermined sense) to 
arithmetic. It is a fact that all computations are implemented and running, in 
the block-time sense, in arithmetic.

If we assume that the substitution level is so low that only a digital copy of 
the entire universe can make me “survive”, we get an approximation of 
physicalism in Mechanism. Lowering the substitution level makes physicalism 
looking correct, but with quantum mechanics, the evidence is that our 
substitution level might be given by the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. 

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRCm4MRxbrhGXw1f%2BdTQWQ%2B%3D-ry8Pbk6%3DG81SNNpBTiyQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D8255308-162F-4689-9136-71A3E6383BA0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-01 Thread PGC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 5:54:54 PM UTC+2, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
> > Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”. 
>
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle. 
>
>
That is a good point! 

If your circle can be tuned towards surviving with diverse joys pursuable 
for diverse agents, cleaning up the mess this creates, without the need for 
folks to feel like sinners in the eyes of the truth of the origin of the 
lord of the god of pure scientific reality... because they swatted a fly, 
flushed the toilet, stepped on leaves of grass, or treat their fridge like 
their Japanese Bot prostitute of coolness instead of being stuck in 
infinite undecidability of venerating her divine truth flying high in the 
platonic heavens or not... then congrats, your theory is ahead of all the 
purist approaches, including whatever Platonists', Christians', Atheists', 
Agnostics', philosophers', Allah's or whoever's flavor of the month happen 
to be. It might therefore even be a sexy thing. Go hard, go high. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c1cf1da1-7ac6-43ec-8b36-526d0bc090ec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people
believed this by ostentation.

Now you're just twisting words. Ostensive definition is by
pointing. One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.

Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive
definition makes sense.

Ostensive definitions are semantic. You point down where you're
standing and say "Earth"...that's how children learn words. And having
defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not believed anything
about it's overall shape.

Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient
and omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were
inconsistent. The correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows
that christians can have a conception of God quite similar to the
neoplatonician one, still in the 19th century. Only atheists defends
the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock it.

I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the
vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was
not God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they
confuse physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after
1500 years of metaphysical brainwashing.

If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality,
you can show it to us.

Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?

Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1,
Z1* and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the
physical reality is primitive.

As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is
a matter of faith…

Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now
require faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable

except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of
faith.

There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is
typically the difference between reasoning with the mechanist
hypothesis (and stating neutral or mute about the personal belief we
can have or not), and saying “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real
life situation. Faith is when some aspect of your first person
experience depends crucially on the truth of an hypothesis. It is the
difference between jumping from a cliff with an elastic, and just
assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.

The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that
physics is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection
would be an evidence that reality is psychological.

You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred
benediction. You don't know what is fundamental...or even if
anything is fundamental. So you are merely inventing a
pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to criticize it and pretend
you are above it.

Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.

Then I would say nothing is primitive. That's the point of my virtuous
circle.

We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we
believe that it cannot be recovered from other principle.

Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to
get a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life
cannot be recovered, even in principle, by another science like
chemistry or physics.

No. Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined
ostensively. It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.

I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist
accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only
in principle.

With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is
explain, in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.

When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject:
what are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the
whole picture.

But you've then already assumed there is a hierarchy of explanation.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4d728998-3ac5-5840-4591-422df6d5931f%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-01 Thread PGC



On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:51:50 AM UTC+2, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
>> this by ostentation. 
>>
>>
>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  
>> One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>>
>>
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
>>
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>>
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to 
>> get a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life 
>> cannot be recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry 
>> or physics.
>>
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist 
>> accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in 
>> principle. 
>>
>> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain, 
>> in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.
>>
>> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what 
>> are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole 
>> picture.
>>
>
> And accepting some set of fundamental principles is just to adopt a 
> hypothesis -- not necessarily an act of faith. Faith, characteristically, 
> enters when we stake our life on something. So your "mechanism" is very 
> much an act of faith, since it requires staking your life on the knowledge 
> and skill of the Dr. But physicalism is not an act of faith, because our 
> life in no way depends on whether we adopt that hypothesis or not.
>
>>
"His mechanism" - you're being way too generous for speculative personal 
mathematical philosophy. As if, merely by manipulating any/every 
conversation towards his bag of rhetorical flourishes, this week "comp", 
next week "mechanism", next week "machines", then "universal numbers", he 
secured a tenable description of the origin of reality. With infinite 
explanations and confessions as to what cannot be explained, while you're 
offered a privileged place in the correction of the history of science, 
right? Consider the discursive attempts to domesticate you, including the 
artificial politeness that never truly listens, learns, or respects peers; 
that would and does defame each and every one of you in the blink of an 
eye, if it could advance its own agenda of aimlessly misguided infinite 
influence. It is our answers that these discourses feed on, that grant them 
legitimacy. In most moderated settings, such posting gets folks kicked out. 
Free lists by all means - but most folks can't defend or handle such 
freedom and the proof is we have perpetual brainwashing of discourse under 
the guise of public education, or social media etc. 

So much intolerance, yes even on this list, and so much liberal 
understanding for it in "open mind" fashion. Too weak, too slow, too 
helpless. 

Take a look at the world around us and all the attempts of 
media/politicians to domesticate the discourses of children that have no 
sense of values, checks and balances, craving juvenile power and influence 
as ends in themselves. Imho we've been way too lenient with the conspiracy 
crowd, with the alternative facts crowds, the religious freaks, their 
constant conspiracy-theory-like victimization discourses that purport to 
explain everything without convincing evidence, which they all find 
explanations for! The foreigners, the other religions, realists, those guys 
over there, the physicalists because...

You can't domesticate animals. Even when they come dressed as polite 
scientists or clean, strong men. They are neither democrats, nor 
scientists. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33e1a4c0-71da-4c15-8360-356880f2ba57%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-01 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
>> *"The son of **God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in
>> advance and being able to control its course”.*
>
>
> *> The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are
> parabola and should never been taken literally.*
>

That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to
explain away his many many lies.

> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met
> a christian who believe in the anything as naive. *
>

You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who
didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that
have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence
C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although I have not personally met them.

> *> You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might
> change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.*
>

I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a
book written by someone who knows even less about how the world really
works than I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one
must use judgement and be selective.

 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-01 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed
> this by ostentation.
>
>
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One
> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>
>
> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive
> definition makes sense.
>
>
>
> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
>
> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe
> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>
> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get
> a physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot
> be recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or
> physics.
>
> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist
> accept that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in
> principle.
>
> With mechanism, the same occurs for the physical reality. It is explain,
> in principle, by very elementary arithmetic.
>
> When interested in fundamental studies, that is part of the subject: what
> are the simple principles that we have to assume to explain the whole
> picture.
>

And accepting some set of fundamental principles is just to adopt a
hypothesis -- not necessarily an act of faith. Faith, characteristically,
enters when we stake our life on something. So your "mechanism" is very
much an act of faith, since it requires staking your life on the knowledge
and skill of the Dr. But physicalism is not an act of faith, because our
life in no way depends on whether we adopt that hypothesis or not.

Bruce

Bruno
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRCm4MRxbrhGXw1f%2BdTQWQ%2B%3D-ry8Pbk6%3DG81SNNpBTiyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> On 31 May 2019, at 21:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/30/2019 12:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Mathematicians homogeninize the concept. Even strong atheism is a theology 
 as it claims that “there is no God”, which is a theological proposition.
>>> That is a misrepresentation of atheism.  Atheists claim "there is no reason 
>>> believe there is a God”.
>> Yes, but they believe only in the post 529 Aristotelian-Christian notion of 
>> God.
> 
> As Bertrand Russell noted, there is no fixed meaning to "God”.

That is a good point.

>   It is a notion appropriated by every ideology to provide unquestionable 
> support.

That does not follow. Politics can appropriate genetic, or even health. But 
then it is politics and no more science. When doing science, all support 
becomes questionable. To let theology in the hand of politics, is to defend the 
idea that there are unquestionable support.

> 
>>  
>> 
>> Then I am atheist too.
>> 
>> But if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus, you can see that 
>> during a millenium, theology was a branch of scientific research. And I use 
>> “god” in that original sense.
> 
> And what science did Proclus produce?  The efficacy of magic rituals?

Of course not. If you read Proclus, you will see only definition, and 
reasoning. There is no magic, nor rituals, nor anything like that. 

Indeed, the discourse of the neoplatonist is quasi-isomorphic to what you get 
from the Gödel-Möb-Solovay self-reference logic. It is normal, the neoplatonist 
reason about themselves, and if they are consistent machine, they get the same 
thing than any machine can find by reasoning from introspective data.

> 
> Theurgy is possible because the powers of the gods (the henads) extend 
> through their series of causation even down to the material world. And by 
> certain power-laden words, acts, and objects, the soul can be drawn back up 
> the series, so to speak. Proclus himself was a devotee of many of the 
> religions in Athens, considering that the power of the gods could be present 
> in these various approaches.

It was the influence of Porphyry and the christians. Plotinus fight this, 
Prophyry was more neutral, (he wrote a treatise entitled “Against The 
Christians”, but when Proclus defended this, but it was a way to attract the 
christians which were more and more successful at his time. Then the sentence 
above actually makes sense in the Mechanist frame. The henads are the i in the 
phi_i. They are the machines. Th series of causation is the notion of 
computation, and that extend indeed “even down the material world” as that is 
why we have physical computers. The soul (the first person) van drawn back the 
series (that is get the universal notion of computation). Then, Proclus indeed 
expect God (truth) and gods (concepts) capable of being usefully transmitted to 
non intellectual, illiterate people with the help of theurgy (a point of 
contention and debate all along neoplatonism. I am myself reflecting on this 
since long (and my standard concussion, coming from Alan Watts, is that this 
works as long as the “priest” is able to blink, and not taking him/herself too 
much seriously.

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> With that definition, atheism does no more make sense or become a form of 
>> nihilism or irrationalism, as God is defined by whatever is the reason why 
>> we are here and now, and that we search. 
>> 
>> Now, I have decided to stop using the nuance “agnostic atheism” and “non 
>> agnostic atheism”, and use instead agnosticism and atheism instead, as all 
>> self)called atheist I ahem met believes in physicalism, consciously or not, 
>> and most of them even believe that God des not exist, which is far different 
>> that not believing in God.
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> "Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
>>> --- George Carlin
>> That is what they claim in theory, but in practice that is not the case, 
>> given that they fight on all theologies, not just the christian one. They 
>> dismiss a millenium of progress in the filed (read Proclus!) and they defend 
>> exactly the same metaphysics than christians. Atheism is, in absolute value, 
>> the same as christianism, but in a radical form.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/905612f9-db1d-8dca-2cf8-6b5b8e8011de%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>>

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity


> On 31 May 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 19:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/29/2019 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Only atheists insist to use “God” in the sense of the Christian (and only 
 Aristotelian among them, where indeed materialism has been *the* dogma).
>>> 
>>> Words are for communication and so their meaning is determined by their 
>>> usage.   "God" in the sense of Christians is also God in the sense of 
>>> Muslims and Hindus.  So it is the usage of at least 70% of humanity.  To 
>>> use it to mean something else is obfuscation.
>> 
>> 
>> Then mathematics and science is obfuscation 100% of the time.
>> 
>> In science we don’t do vocabulary discussion. If you want call god “Arthur” 
>> or “Josephine”, just do it.
>> 
>> Then what you say does not make sense. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have 
>> always been divided between the Aristotelian conception of God and Matter 
>> and the Platonist conception of God and matter, which are totally different. 
>> The Platonic conception is not well represented because Christians and 
>> Muslims have stolen theology from science to make it into an instrument of 
>> power, and have forced the Platonicians to exil, when they have not killed 
>> them.
>> 
>> I think you want to please me by illustration how much atheists defend the 
>> Aristotelian Christian and Muslims materialist metaphysics. 
>> 
>> The God/Non-God debate looks exactly like a fake debate to make us forget 
>> that the original metaphysical question was about the fundamental existence 
>> of a primitive physical universe. The question took the form of what is more 
>> fundamental among mathematics and physics later.
>> 
>> I am the atheist or agnostic here: I do not believe in your God Matter. I 
>> found no evidence. My whole work show how we can test mechanism/materialism, 
>> and the test shows that Nature confirms Platonism.
>> 
>> I will change my mind if the physics which is in the mind of all universal 
>> machine differ from nature, but up to now, the evidences are that they fit. 
>> There is no evidence for materialism. None. It is speculating on some god to 
>> avoid science.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 You confirm, like many, that  the atheists "are like slaves who are still 
 feeling the weight of their chain which they have thrown off after hard 
 struggle”, to quote Einstein.
 
 
 
> and it meant a supernatural human-like agent: Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah 
> Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, 
> Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, 
> Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, 
> Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, 
> Brigit,...Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, 
> Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, 
> Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, 
> Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, 
> Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?
 I will ask you to use the word “Earth” for a Flat object on which the 
 human stand up.
>>> 
>>> An attempted analogy that does not work.  Unlike "god", we can define Earth 
>>> ostensively and so learn that it has different properties, like being 
>>> spheroidal, without changing the definition.
>> 
>> No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
>> this by ostentation.
> 
> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.

Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
definition makes sense.



> 
>> Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
>> omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
>> correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have a 
>> conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 19th 
>> century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock 
>> it.
>> 
>> I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the vocabulary. 
>> For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not God, but 
>> “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse physics and 
>> metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of metaphysical 
>> brainwashing.
>> 
>> If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you can 
>> show it to us.
> 
> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality? 

Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* and 
X1* depart from nature, that would

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> On 31 May 2019, at 18:12, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >  if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus...
> 
> ... then the time you spend doing that would be time you're not reading a 
> book written by an author who, unlike Proclus, *did* know where the sun went 
> at night.

Penrose said gross stupidity on Gödel’s theorem, but that does not make its 
spin networks and all its contribution if physics less interesting.

Yes, in physics, both Aristotle and Plotinus, and Proclus, have regressed, with 
respect to Erathostene, for example, but here we discuss theology, where you 
seem to have regressed to literal christianism.

> 
> > even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent 
> > when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent.
> 
> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> 
> "The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance and 
> being able to control its course”.

The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are parabola 
and should never been taken literally. Of course, that is debated by some 
catholic, bu I have still never met a christian who believe in the anything as 
naive. You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might 
change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.

Bruno 

> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2hrdsgiQ2u0erPkZnA6-XHdzpYj7GHxf%3DC-a847g4yvQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E33AD7D6-9397-4E16-BA9D-A0B118FE7AD0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 31 May 2019, at 17:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 31-May-2019, at 4:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>> Samiya. I am still not sure what was the point of your post, but thanks for 
>> the information.
>> 
> It was a response to Philip Benjamin’s post. 

I saw that.But each response is addressed to everybody.  Hmm… my remark still 
apply but I will not insist. 
I suspected something interesting, but you make me doubt, to be honest,

Bruno


> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A86FA1BA-5BA5-4721-A7E2-5A573201038D%40gmail.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/77D8EC79-935A-488E-8DFC-3A9A376634D7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-31 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 5/31/2019 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 May 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 5/30/2019 12:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Mathematicians homogeninize the concept. Even strong atheism is a theology as
it claims that “there is no God”, which is a theological proposition.

That is a misrepresentation of atheism. Atheists claim "there is no reason
believe there is a God”.

Yes, but they believe only in the post 529 Aristotelian-Christian notion of God.

As Bertrand Russell noted, there is no fixed meaning to "God". It is a
notion appropriated by every ideology to provide unquestionable support.

Then I am atheist too.

But if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus, you can see that during a
millenium, theology was a branch of scientific research. And I use “god” in
that original sense.

And what science did Proclus produce? The efficacy of magic rituals?

/Theurgy is possible because the powers of the gods (the henads) extend
through their series of causation even down to the material world. And
by certain power-laden words, acts, and objects, the soul can be drawn
back up the series, so to speak. Proclus himself was a devotee of many
of the religions in Athens, considering that the power of the gods could
be present in these various approaches.

/Brent/
/

With that definition, atheism does no more make sense or become a form of
nihilism or irrationalism, as God is defined by whatever is the reason why we
are here and now, and that we search.

Now, I have decided to stop using the nuance “agnostic atheism” and “non
agnostic atheism”, and use instead agnosticism and atheism instead, as all
self)called atheist I ahem met believes in physicalism, consciously or not, and
most of them even believe that God des not exist, which is far different that
not believing in God.

Brent
"Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
--- George Carlin

That is what they claim in theory, but in practice that is not the case, given
that they fight on all theologies, not just the christian one. They dismiss a
millenium of progress in the filed (read Proclus!) and they defend exactly the
same metaphysics than christians. Atheism is, in absolute value, the same as
christianism, but in a radical form.

Bruno

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/905612f9-db1d-8dca-2cf8-6b5b8e8011de%40verizon.net.

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5703b1f9-7c43-4bef-659e-3cbc941c953d%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-31 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/31/2019 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 May 2019, at 19:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/29/2019 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Only atheists insist to use “God” in the sense of the Christian (and only 
Aristotelian among them, where indeed materialism has been*the*  dogma).


Words are for communication and so their meaning is determined by 
their usage.   "God" in the sense of Christians is also God in the 
sense of Muslims and Hindus.  So it is the usage of at least 70% of 
humanity. To use it to mean something else is obfuscation.



Then mathematics and science is obfuscation 100% of the time.

In science we don’t do vocabulary discussion. If you want call god 
“Arthur” or “Josephine”, just do it.


Then what you say does not make sense. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, 
have always been divided between the Aristotelian conception of God 
and Matter and the Platonist conception of God and matter, which are 
totally different. The Platonic conception is not well represented 
because Christians and Muslims have stolen theology from science to 
make it into an instrument of power, and have forced the Platonicians 
to exil, when they have not killed them.


I think you want to please me by illustration how much atheists defend 
the Aristotelian Christian and Muslims materialist metaphysics.


The God/Non-God debate looks exactly like a fake debate to make us 
forget that the original metaphysical question was about the 
fundamental existence of a primitive physical universe. The question 
took the form of what is more fundamental among mathematics and 
physics later.


I am the atheist or agnostic here: I do not believe in your God 
Matter. I found no evidence. My whole work show how we can test 
mechanism/materialism, and the test shows that Nature confirms Platonism.


I will change my mind if the physics which is in the mind of all 
universal machine differ from nature, but up to now, the evidences are 
that they fit. There is no evidence for materialism. None. It is 
speculating on some god to avoid science.








You confirm, like many, that  the atheists "are like slaves who are still 
feeling the weight of their chain which they have thrown off after hard struggle”, 
to quote Einstein.




and it meant a supernatural human-like agent: Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, 
Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, 
Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, 
Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, 
Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit,...Si-Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, 
Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut, Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, 
Tianhou, Tlaloc, Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis, 
Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu, Xochipilli, 
Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum Kimil or Zeus?

I will ask you to use the word “Earth” for a Flat object on which the human 
stand up.


An attempted analogy that does not work.  Unlike "god", we can define 
Earth ostensively and so learn that it has different properties, like 
being spheroidal, without changing the definition.


No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people 
believed this by ostentation.


Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  
One can't believe a proposition by ostentation.


Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient 
and omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were 
inconsistent. The correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows 
that christians can have a conception of God quite similar to the 
neoplatonician one, still in the 19th century. Only atheists defends 
the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock it.


I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was 
not God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they 
confuse physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 
years of metaphysical brainwashing.


If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, 
you can show it to us.


Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality? As you 
often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a matter 
of faith...except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a 
leap of faith.


The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that 
physics is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection 
would be an evidence that reality is psychological.


You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  
You don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is 
fundamental.  So you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of 
physicalism in order to criticize it and pretend you are above it.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*>  if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus...*


... then the time you spend doing that would be time you're not reading a
book written by an author who, unlike Proclus, **did** know where the sun
went at night.

*> even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent
> when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent.*


>From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:

*"The son of **God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance
and being able to control its course".*

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2hrdsgiQ2u0erPkZnA6-XHdzpYj7GHxf%3DC-a847g4yvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-31 Thread Samiya Illias




> On 31-May-2019, at 4:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> Samiya. I am still not sure what was the point of your post, but thanks for 
> the information.
> 
It was a response to Philip Benjamin’s post. 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A86FA1BA-5BA5-4721-A7E2-5A573201038D%40gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-05-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:29 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> And when they talk about THE ONE in deep stentorious tones they mean a
>> grey amorphous blob that doesn't have the smallest speck of intelligence or
>> consciousness that did something very important that they can't specify.
>> They give no evidence for anything and they can't even speculate how the
>> blob managed to do the very important blobish thing that blobs tend to do.
>
>
> *?*
>

*!*

> *I think this hosts you have not read Plotinus.*
>

I have not read what Og the caveman has to say about string theory either.

 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2c5XYZ5o%3D2MuLNBd3R_dmqzjAqRGKsfH%2BcqMHMfBSXjA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 31 May 2019, at 11:49, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 31-May-2019, at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>> Samiya,
>> 
>> Can you elaborate. I don’t understand. Please my a point, and then 
>> illustrate with quotes and links.
>> What is Bani Israel? 
> Bani means sons. The term Bani Israel refers to the twelve tribes of Israel 
> who are the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, who was later renamed 
> Israel. 
> Moses was from the Bani Israel.  

Samiya. I am still not sure what was the point of your post, but thanks for the 
information.


Bruno

> 
>> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2E2AC20C-C313-4714-8174-2CE1B424132A%40gmail.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7A7D7A3A-E6EB-4FE8-99F8-7BD51430BDAD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]


> On 30 May 2019, at 14:35, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal Wrote:
>  
> >  I can conclude with considerable confidence that the neoplatonist are as 
> > dumb as dog shit for thinking they have made a great philosophical 
> > discovery by abandoning the idea of God but not the ASCII sequence G-O-D.
> 
> > They did, actually. The official term for the Neoplatonist is the ONE. 
>  
> And when they talk about THE ONE in deep stentorious tones they mean a grey 
> amorphous blob that doesn't have the smallest speck of intelligence or 
> consciousness that did something very important that they can't specify. They 
> give no evidence for anything and they can't even speculate how the blob 
> managed to do the very important blobish thing that blobs tend to do.

?

I think this hosts you have not read Plotinus.



> 
> And these poor boobs think they are great philosophers who have made a 
> wonderful discovery about how the world works.


They are scientists, and they never brag on anything. You did tell me not 
having red them, so it is weird why you attribute to them such curious and 
weird ideas.


Bruno



> 
> >> Before about 1248 dead Greek philosophers had a iron grip on the thoughts 
> >> of European thinkers. This period is sometimes called the Dark Ages.
> 
> > ?
> 
> 
> !
> 
> >> About 1248 Roger Bacon made the first modest steps toward the scientific 
> >> method and slightly loosened the stranglehold on imagination and 
> >> creativity that dead Greek Philosophers had held for a thousand years. 
> >> This period is sometimes called the Renaissance. 
> 
> > ?
> 
> !
> 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1SdcQMWC8GE45pSw-n5g4PqR0LAZa2FmF0%2BtuQ94doGg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EF3680C8-260F-45F6-8311-82BCCFFD4E78%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-05-31 Thread Samiya Illias




> On 31-May-2019, at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> Samiya,
> 
> Can you elaborate. I don’t understand. Please my a point, and then illustrate 
> with quotes and links.
> What is Bani Israel? 
Bani means sons. The term Bani Israel refers to the twelve tribes of Israel who 
are the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, who was later renamed Israel. 
Moses was from the Bani Israel.  

> Bruno

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2E2AC20C-C313-4714-8174-2CE1B424132A%40gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

Samiya,

Can you elaborate. I don’t understand. Please my a point, and then illustrate 
with quotes and links.
What is Bani Israel?

Bruno



> On 31 May 2019, at 04:37, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 31-May-2019, at 12:10 AM, Philip Benjamin  <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity from Google group forum at the bottom 
>> [Philip Benjamin]
>> Rudyard Kipling’s Ballad speaks a lot! The recent posts in the Google group 
>> seems to prove it. These are in fact products of WAMP-erial campuses and 
>> WAMP-ologies (defined elsewhere below). Though annoyance and apathy to these 
>> ill-thought-out babblings of Western paganism (see notes below) are very 
>> legitimate responses, it is rather heart-felt pity and dismay that really 
>> rise up in one’s “mind” (or consciousness? conscience?), especially for one 
>> born about 80 miles South-Central to Kaladi, Shankaracharya’s  birthplace 
>> and about the same distance and direction from Kodungallur the landing place 
>> (52-AD) in Kerala/Malankara of the Doubting Apostle Thomas, (where the 
>> middle names still matter as the more meaningful references!!).  
>>  An explanation is in order for the word paganism. In Queen’s 
>> English enriched by the KJV, “pagan” (probably from pan-Gaia = 
>> earth-worshipper)   is of very recent origin and never used in the KJV. 
>> Instead KJV uses heathen, foreign and strange. The dilemma of KJV 
>> translators is understandable. How can Great Britain (first so used during 
>> the reign of King James I of England -James VI of Scotland- in 1603) be 
>> “heathen”? So, they transliterated the Latin root gentilis into gentiles, 
>> for the Hebrew word “goy(im)” which simply means “nation(s)” and referred 
>> also to the Nation of Israel. (Scofield Bible uses “nation” instead of 
>> “gentile”). This is not specifically discussed by James Hedges, Ph.D., 
>> professor of English, emeritus, Azusa Pacific University, in  “The Influence 
>> of the King James Bible on English Literature” 
>> (https://www.apu.edu/articles/the-influence-of-the-king-james-bible-on-english-literature/
>>  
>> <https://www.apu.edu/articles/the-influence-of-the-king-james-bible-on-english-literature/>.
>>  
>> There seems to be general agreement on the following:
>> 1. Judaism in a way is more intellectual than Catholicism. 
>> 2. Hell-threat is the worst form of terrorism
>> 3. If self-expression is legit for the creature, it should be legit for the 
>> Creator also. Therefore the Scriptures must be taken literally.
>> 4. Mixing religion with State is blasphemous
>> 5. The concept of “ontological real matter” is magical thinking, like the 
>> Vitalism of “the biologist some century ago”). Theology is contrary to 
>> science and religion, causing social schizophrenia.
>> 1.   Judaism is ill-defined and misrepresented these days by the academics. 
>> The word “Jew” appears for the first time in 2Kings16:6 (~550 BC) with the 
>> Assyrian captivity of Israel (Northern Kingdom) followed 136 years later of 
>> Judah (Southern Kingdom) by the Babylonian exile {2 Kings 17:7-8: "All this 
>> took place because the Israelites had rebelled against the LORD [YHWH, 
>> singular] their God [Elohim, uni-plural echad], who had brought them up out 
>> of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other 
>> gods and followed the practices of the nations [goim, foreigners, 
>> heathen]…..” Traditional  Judaism (of Rabbi Yeshua’s days) is Talmudic 
>> (Babylonian), not Tanakhic (Mosaic, Prophetic). For example, “Love your 
>> neighbor” (Lev 19:18) is Tanakhic “and hate your enemy” is Talmudic (aka 
>> Traditions, Qumran sect taught: “Bear unremitting hatred towards all men of 
>> ill repute, Manual of Discipline ix, 21-26).  In Matthew 5:43 the Rabbi 
>> Yeshua Hamashiach corrects the “Traditions”. It is difficult to define 
>> Modern Judaism—the more Orthodox, the closer to Talmud, the more Reformed 
>> the lesser to Tanakh and to Talmud!! 
>> 2.  Hell-threat? That depends on what the hell, Hell is!! The WAMP culture 
>> is ignorant of the Protoevangelium—vicarious death of the Testator who 
>> pronounced the Sentence of death in Genesis 3:15, which is expounded by 
>> Rabbi Saul of Tarsus in the letter to the Romans chapter five, where the 
>> sentence is mediated by the Sentenser and risen again from the dead. Those 
>> who willingly accept that mediated cancellation will be with the Risen 
>> Testator (Hebrews 9:16) and those who willfully reject it will continue to 
>> be where

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

> On 30 May 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/30/2019 12:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Mathematicians homogeninize the concept. Even strong atheism is a theology 
>> as it claims that “there is no God”, which is a theological proposition.
> 
> That is a misrepresentation of atheism.  Atheists claim "there is no reason 
> believe there is a God”.

Yes, but they believe only in the post 529 Aristotelian-Christian notion of 
God. 

Then I am atheist too.

But if you read the “Element of Theology” by Proclus, you can see that during a 
millenium, theology was a branch of scientific research. And I use “god” in 
that original sense.

With that definition, atheism does no more make sense or become a form of 
nihilism or irrationalism, as God is defined by whatever is the reason why we 
are here and now, and that we search. 

Now, I have decided to stop using the nuance “agnostic atheism” and “non 
agnostic atheism”, and use instead agnosticism and atheism instead, as all 
self)called atheist I ahem met believes in physicalism, consciously or not, and 
most of them even believe that God des not exist, which is far different that 
not believing in God.

> Brent
> "Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."
> --- George Carlin

That is what they claim in theory, but in practice that is not the case, given 
that they fight on all theologies, not just the christian one. They dismiss a 
millenium of progress in the filed (read Proclus!) and they defend exactly the 
same metaphysics than christians. Atheism is, in absolute value, the same as 
christianism, but in a radical form.

Bruno

> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/905612f9-db1d-8dca-2cf8-6b5b8e8011de%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A734660E-19D7-4DF1-84C6-F8202D654687%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity