Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On Monday, 6 February 2017 14:47:08 UTC, PGC wrote: > > > Besides that, one could wonder for example if it is modest to publicly > criticize the work of people that support your work, like you did with a > recent paper on this list. A modest colleague would operate with more > discretion and professionalism, it would seem to me. Especially when others > endorse (and translate etc.) others' work, which in my old-fashioned > worldview signals trust and *having each others back*, > This type of thinking seems terribly non-scientific. It seems like you advocate some kind of 'favours for friends' approach to things. And what exactly is immodest about criticism? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 5:39:19 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2017, at 15:25, PGC wrote: > > Now it's interdisciplinary that nobody recognizes arithmetical reality to > not be axiomatizable, the next day it's a mathematicalism, on another day > it's a point in theology, on another day we have the amazing result of > fuzzy physics, then it's only a toy theology, then everybody lacks modesty, > *but > you evade the question: how does all this do and feature in peoples' lives?* > Even for scientists: they would all become magically modest and not evil, > upon realizing technical points such as that A.R. is not axiomatizable? > > > All scientist are already modest. > I'm immune to the show, Bruno. Again you pretend that your personal preferences are a general law, when knowing full well that even in mathematics, there are people with richer, maximalist styles and preferences. Besides that, one could wonder for example if it is modest to publicly criticize the work of people that support your work, like you did with a recent paper on this list. A modest colleague would operate with more discretion and professionalism, it would seem to me. Especially when others endorse (and translate etc.) others' work, which in my old-fashioned worldview signals trust and having each others back, instead of stabbing it publicly for the sake of pushing your interpretation of the truth of that day. Here, I've seen greedy materialists be more modest and polite to each other. > It is just that the theological science are still taboo. > There is scientific activity, funding, and active debate concerning translation/interpretation of ancient Greek texts, there is activity on comparative religion, there is activity in foundations of science and mathematics, with literally hundreds of journals, courses and the appropriate classes out there. Believing that theological science is still taboo is curious unless they are all charlatans beyond hope, in which case I feel my point to be made. This seems cynical/fatalist and denies the existence of the transfinite ladder of refutation you advertised just yesterday. > The non axiomatizability of the arithmetical truth (not RA which is an > axiom system) illustrate, with God played by Arithmetical truth, that the > "antic" theology of Plotin and others admit an interpretation in > arithmetic. > > Indeed, god is "played" by arithmetical truth. Who's play is it? Who owns the stage and what laws and authority govern the mise-en-scene? Pure truth, right? Did you ask Plotinus and have his consent? Also, interdisciplinary appropriacy and the "fits well" criterium don't seem to be particularly effective selling points: my hand fits in a burning oven... does that mean it belongs there? This expresses an aesthetic preference and contributes nothing to veracity, unless those preferences are shared. That's why it's useless to approach people with "have you understood step 3 etc.?" before establishing that there is an openness to such preferences, worldviews, styles of thought and the ability to relate to them. I have a feeling that despite your advertised modesty, you'd plow through anybody with your program regardless of the persons they are and the styles and preferences they have. > > > > *Without a meaningful relation to peoples' lives, even if just on some > theological level, this discourse uses scientific environs to justify > purely personal mysticisms.* I fail to see evidence of such a relation > nor evidence that there is an end to your need to justify what the world > has misunderstood. The latter feels like a certainty, which does not fit > well with the modest approach you keep bragging about, attacking in > principle all scientists who don't listen to your sermonizing without > clearly naming or engaging them. PGC > > > > The point is technical, and of interest for people searching a theory of > everything, or the fundamental theory. The point is that if we assume a > certain hypothesis (Digital Mechanism), then any first order logical > specification of a Turing Universal theory can be used (like Robinson > Arithmetic, ...), and that a version of that idea is testable, by comparing > the universal machine observable (machine's physics) with the current > observation. > So today it's technical again, where testability is meant to appeal to more empirical tastes which is funny because nobody is defending some strong form thereof. So you're probably in touch with the guys at particle accelerators or school physics teachers etc. if you are confident in this assertion and moving the curriculum forward. And that's great. Good luck with those efforts and if you need support, then you might consider toning down the "I deserve a Nobel Prize as the last correct scientist-act but don't want to get my hands dirty with yucky dirty practicalities, which is the work for secretaries that I don't have
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On 03 Feb 2017, at 23:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/3/2017 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2017, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/2/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I do think the greek get the "correct" mystical insight, which is
that Truth is bigger than Reason.
It's also bigger than logic
Of course. Reason by itself is already bigger than logic. All
theories are bigger than (first order) logic.
- something which every scientist and engineer knows.
Engineers? I guess so. But scientists? Perhaps, but not so much the
Aristotelian believer, who are not aware that even just elementary
arithmetic is not unifiable in a complete theory. Many scientists
are just unaware of the impact of Gödel's discovery, and have
sometimes a reductionist conception of machine, numbers, and finite
things in general. It took Gödel's ingenuity to kill the the
Leibniz-Hilbert Dream of making the base of mathematics consistent
and simple. For many, when they understand this, they realize for
the first time that there is a mathematical reality beyond the
theories which try to study that reality.
It is only mathematicians and logicians who think all knowledge
can be reached by reasoning.
OK.
But you need to make such mistake to understand that they are
*scientific* mistake. Today, many scientists continue to do that
mistake with respect to arithmetic. That the arithmetical reality
is not even axiomatizable
You write that as though it was an important revelation - but no
Milesian philosopher (a term I will invent to describe those of
scientific mind, neither Platonic nor Aristotelian) would have even
entertained such an outlandish idea that reality might be
axiomatizable. However, arithmetic is axiomatizable and in fact
that's how it's defined - by a set of axioms such as Peano's.
Just to make things clear, I will use Arithmetic for Arithmetical
Truth, by which I mean the set of all true arithmetical propositions.
To be even more specific, I will identify the arithmeticl truth with
the set of Gödel numbers of the true arithmetical propositions. That
set is not axiomatisable. It is not recursively enumerable.
By arithmetic with a little "a", I mean either the set of G¨del number
of theorems of Robinson Arithmetic, or Peano Arithmetic. Those sets
are axiomatizable by construction, and that is what is denoited by the
"[]", in the case of Peano Arithmetic, or any "rational believer" (in
the mechanist theory).
I am not sure what you try to say. Could you elaborate on the
Milesian's conception of reality. As I (re)defined the Platonist and
Aristotelian view, I don't see how we can escape the alternative,
which is either the physical reality is the One ("Aristotle"), or
something else might be ("Plato").
(no complete theory) is quite very often badly understood. When
working in the interdisciplinary domain, it is better to assume
that nothing is obvious, and put all cards on the table. What is
obvious for some can be quite unbelievable for another. Sometimes
obvious thing are shown just wrong.
Which Leucippus and Democritus realized, e.g. the Earth is not flat.
Brent
Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu
and no food.
--- Robert Pirsig
I tried to be less provocating using "metaphysics" instead of
theology, but I knew it will not make down the mockery :)
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On 03 Feb 2017, at 15:25, PGC wrote: On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:36:19 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Feb 2017, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/2/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I do think the greek get the "correct" mystical insight, which is >> that Truth is bigger than Reason. > > It's also bigger than logic Of course. Reason by itself is already bigger than logic. All theories are bigger than (first order) logic. > - something which every scientist and engineer knows. Engineers? I guess so. But scientists? Perhaps, but not so much the Aristotelian believer, who are not aware that even just elementary arithmetic is not unifiable in a complete theory. Inform them then perhaps instead of whining about it? Or is it that you expect people to do the hard work of presenting your work because you're too busy lecturing an internet list? Many scientists are just unaware of the impact of Gödel's discovery, and have sometimes a reductionist conception of machine, numbers, and finite things in general. Oh no! We are doomed. Everybody plug Bruno's writings immediately! Sell your houses, there is a world to save. It took Gödel's ingenuity to kill the the Leibniz-Hilbert Dream of making the base of mathematics consistent and simple. For many, when they understand this, they realize for the first time that there is a mathematical reality beyond the theories which try to study that reality. For many yes, but for many others not. Some ask: ok, but what good does this bring? > It is only mathematicians and logicians who think all knowledge can > be reached by reasoning. OK. But you need to make such mistake to understand that they are *scientific* mistake. Today, many scientists continue to do that mistake with respect to arithmetic. You're repeating yourself. Approach "the many scientists" more directly then. That the arithmetical reality is not even axiomatizable (no complete theory) is quite very often badly understood. When working in the interdisciplinary domain, it is better to assume that nothing is obvious, and put all cards on the table. Now it's interdisciplinary that nobody recognizes arithmetical reality to not be axiomatizable, the next day it's a mathematicalism, on another day it's a point in theology, on another day we have the amazing result of fuzzy physics, then it's only a toy theology, then everybody lacks modesty, but you evade the question: how does all this do and feature in peoples' lives? Even for scientists: they would all become magically modest and not evil, upon realizing technical points such as that A.R. is not axiomatizable? All scientist are already modest. It is just that the theological science are still taboo. The non axiomatizability of the arithmetical truth (not RA which is an axiom system) illustrate, with God played by Arithmetical truth, that the "antic" theology of Plotin and others admit an interpretation in arithmetic. Without a meaningful relation to peoples' lives, even if just on some theological level, this discourse uses scientific environs to justify purely personal mysticisms. I fail to see evidence of such a relation nor evidence that there is an end to your need to justify what the world has misunderstood. The latter feels like a certainty, which does not fit well with the modest approach you keep bragging about, attacking in principle all scientists who don't listen to your sermonizing without clearly naming or engaging them. PGC The point is technical, and of interest for people searching a theory of everything, or the fundamental theory. The point is that if we assume a certain hypothesis (Digital Mechanism), then any first order logical specification of a Turing Universal theory can be used (like Robinson Arithmetic, ...), and that a version of that idea is testable, by comparing the universal machine observable (machine's physics) with the current observation. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On 2/3/2017 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Feb 2017, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/2/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I do think the greek get the "correct" mystical insight, which is that Truth is bigger than Reason. It's also bigger than logic Of course. Reason by itself is already bigger than logic. All theories are bigger than (first order) logic. - something which every scientist and engineer knows. Engineers? I guess so. But scientists? Perhaps, but not so much the Aristotelian believer, who are not aware that even just elementary arithmetic is not unifiable in a complete theory. Many scientists are just unaware of the impact of Gödel's discovery, and have sometimes a reductionist conception of machine, numbers, and finite things in general. It took Gödel's ingenuity to kill the the Leibniz-Hilbert Dream of making the base of mathematics consistent and simple. For many, when they understand this, they realize for the first time that there is a mathematical reality beyond the theories which try to study that reality. It is only mathematicians and logicians who think all knowledge can be reached by reasoning. OK. But you need to make such mistake to understand that they are *scientific* mistake. Today, many scientists continue to do that mistake with respect to arithmetic. That the arithmetical reality is not even axiomatizable You write that as though it was an important revelation - but no Milesian philosopher (a term I will invent to describe those of scientific mind, neither Platonic nor Aristotelian) would have even entertained such an outlandish idea that reality might be axiomatizable. However, arithmetic is axiomatizable and in fact that's how it's defined - by a set of axioms such as Peano's. (no complete theory) is quite very often badly understood. When working in the interdisciplinary domain, it is better to assume that nothing is obvious, and put all cards on the table. What is obvious for some can be quite unbelievable for another. Sometimes obvious thing are shown just wrong. Which Leucippus and Democritus realized, e.g. the Earth is not flat. Brent Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu and no food. --- Robert Pirsig -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:36:19 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Feb 2017, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/2/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> I do think the greek get the "correct" mystical insight, which is > >> that Truth is bigger than Reason. > > > > It's also bigger than logic > > Of course. Reason by itself is already bigger than logic. All theories > are bigger than (first order) logic. > > > > > - something which every scientist and engineer knows. > > Engineers? I guess so. But scientists? Perhaps, but not so much the > Aristotelian believer, who are not aware that even just elementary > arithmetic is not unifiable in a complete theory. Inform them then perhaps instead of whining about it? Or is it that you expect people to do the hard work of presenting your work because you're too busy lecturing an internet list? > Many scientists are > just unaware of the impact of Gödel's discovery, and have sometimes a > reductionist conception of machine, numbers, and finite things in > general. Oh no! We are doomed. Everybody plug Bruno's writings immediately! Sell your houses, there is a world to save. > It took Gödel's ingenuity to kill the the Leibniz-Hilbert > Dream of making the base of mathematics consistent and simple. For > many, when they understand this, they realize for the first time that > there is a mathematical reality beyond the theories which try to study > that reality. > > For many yes, but for many others not. Some ask: ok, but what good does this bring? > > > > It is only mathematicians and logicians who think all knowledge can > > be reached by reasoning. > > OK. > > But you need to make such mistake to understand that they are > *scientific* mistake. Today, many scientists continue to do that > mistake with respect to arithmetic. You're repeating yourself. Approach "the many scientists" more directly then. > That the arithmetical reality is > not even axiomatizable (no complete theory) is quite very often badly > understood. When working in the interdisciplinary domain, it is better > to assume that nothing is obvious, and put all cards on the table. Now it's interdisciplinary that nobody recognizes arithmetical reality to not be axiomatizable, the next day it's a mathematicalism, on another day it's a point in theology, on another day we have the amazing result of fuzzy physics, then it's only a toy theology, then everybody lacks modesty, *but you evade the question: how does all this do and feature in peoples' lives?* Even for scientists: they would all become magically modest and not evil, upon realizing technical points such as that A.R. is not axiomatizable? *Without a meaningful relation to peoples' lives, even if just on some theological level, this discourse uses scientific environs to justify purely personal mysticisms.* I fail to see evidence of such a relation nor evidence that there is an end to your need to justify what the world has misunderstood. The latter feels like a certainty, which does not fit well with the modest approach you keep bragging about, attacking in principle all scientists who don't listen to your sermonizing without clearly naming or engaging them. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Brainwashing by atheists
On 2/2/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I do think the greek get the "correct" mystical insight, which is that Truth is bigger than Reason. It's also bigger than logic - something which every scientist and engineer knows. It is only mathematicians and logicians who think all knowledge can be reached by reasoning. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
