Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 15 Jan 2013, at 08:26, meekerdb wrote: On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: Since most of these people were theists, I found it easier to just say, I'm an atheist, because that succinctly conveys (to those who respect the meaning of words) my lack of belief in their theist gods. Then I am atheist too. I am just out of that debate. The real question is does God exist, and then we can measure if such or such religion is closer to that God. But God is defined here by the (unnameable) transcendental (independent of me) from which all notion of existence emerge. Then we can ask if we can have personal link, like with the notion of inner god. For a plotinian God is both a universal soul attractor, and the reason why soul fall from it, in some circumstances. No, the real question is whether there is something fundamental from which all that we experience can be derived and if so what is it? Yes. If you were German and called it Urstoff I'd go along with you. I try to avoid Aristotelian imagery. God = truth, not stoff and even less Ur. You should perhaps read Plotinus. The being (Noùs), which is what looks like stuff for the internal creature is enclosed between two things outside beings, God (by definition the truth frm which the beings emanate) and matter, the unavoidable and uncontrollable (by God) border of the observable. But you insist on calling this hypothetical thing God thus dragging in all kinds of connotations of personhood, judgement, worship, dogma,... because I read many theologians of different culture. I realize that 'even Christianism is less wrong than atheism with respect of the global rational picture that we can bet on with computationalism. Let us call it the 'one' (but this change of name can be misleading as It has no name, and changing name can be a symptom that we take the name seriously. Some atheists describe my work as super-atheism, as all Aristotelian Gods are refuted, somehow. But they are usually not even aware of the other conceptions of God and reality. Other physicists I know like Tegmark's idea or Wheeler's It from bit and many work on information based physics. None that I know hold primary matter as dogma that they believe even if they think it's the best current model. Tegmark and Wheeler are the closer to comp, and are rather exceptional. No, they are not. Of course most physicists don't worry about 'what's fundamental, mathematics or matter'. But among those that do think about it, I'd say more are close to Tegmark than to Aristotle. Really? Note that Tegmark is still close to Aristotle too. he has not embrace the comp reversal between physics and machine theology/ psychology/biology. There is still a notion of physical universe, even if he become perhaps more cautious, and get closer to comp. Yes, but his physical universe is just mathematical. It is physical like your fundamental stuff is God It is not stuff. Is it a person? I don't know yet. - it's just a use of an old word to mean something quite different. Physicist are sometimes criticized (rightly) for the same thing, using words like color and free energy in ways that are only vaguely related to the common meaning. But they at least all agree on the technical meaning - whereas every theologian redefines God for himself. I follow Plato. I give the references, and despite 1500 years of politics, even the conventional religion are less false than atheism in this matter. It *is* a technical point. An important one, given that the opposition to my work comes from fundamentalist atheists. They don't like the realization that the belief in primary matter is a religious belief. You seem to be unaware of the many atheist sects. Many are secret and non transparent. I think you might never have met fundamentalist atheists. I belong to the Ventura County Freethinkers, which has some fifty members almost all of whom call themselves atheists. I'd say a only two or three match your idea of believing in 'primary matter', but most of them haven't thought of it that deeply anyway. Even the cat believe in primary matter by default. Milk is a sort of independent substance for him/her. Our brains are constituted that way. Only people with frequent realist dreams usually can doubt, by themselves, the basic nature of reality. So people who does not think deep on this usually have never doubt primary matter. You are putting thoughts into their head. Cats and people believe in matter. They don't need to have any opinion about whether it is primary. You might be right, but given our mammal brain, I think it is reasonable to suppose it seems primary for them by default. Unless when waking and remembering dream, which is the root of the skepticism here. They just
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/11/2013 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. OK. Nice. It's not like any god, That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the concept, or the very idea that we can reason on that concept. except the liberal theologians god which can be anything. It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or model of the universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the idea that only the Christian's notion of God make sense? Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist? That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a theist? Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you don't need to be theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the existence of something non jusitifiable, as a complete type of explanation, are you doing theology. Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in primary matter without even realizing that this needs an act of faith, and then as I show it contradicts the comp explanation of mind and body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its relation with matter. When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, How do you know that? I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent, even if it looks more modern. The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians. They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter. And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when you ask the details. If you insist they can even invoke secrecy. Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation? Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did. and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you in order to discredit them. It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but they will not say so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet dogmatic proposition. you are just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of atheism. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 11 Jan 2013, at 17:37, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't believe that you can explain perception without God And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God just did it? If the God theory could actually explain something and not just chant God did it I'd go to church with you next Sunday and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't explain everything and that's true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING. In your religion. I guess. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 11 Jan 2013, at 21:42, meekerdb wrote: On 1/11/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Empirical proofs can be ostensive. But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Almost nothing indeed. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true. You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it. :-) Why? Not sure I get the joke :? We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those evidences as a proof that the theory applies to reality. I was just tweaking you for using prove both for the transformation from axiom to theorem and for empirically testing a theory - right after you acknowledged they were quite different. The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) is completely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true). But that was my point. That's why there is no empirical proof at al indeed. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Richard Ruquist OK, He would work. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47 Subject: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Hi Rog, Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply. Rich On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid. Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle? law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 10 Jan 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god- like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. OK. Nice. It's not like any god, That's not true. It is like the God of those who introduce the concept, or the very idea that we can reason on that concept. except the liberal theologians god which can be anything. It might be any thing that we can conceive as being the explanation or model of the universal realm. Why does atheist defended so much the idea that only the Christian's notion of God make sense? Why defending a notion of God just to say that it does not exist? That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a theist? Well, everybody who believe in primary matter is a theist. But you don't need to be theist to believe in matter. Only when you posit the existence of something non jusitifiable, as a complete type of explanation, are you doing theology. Science is agnostic, by definition. But many scientist believe in primary matter without even realizing that this needs an act of faith, and then as I show it contradicts the comp explanation of mind and body, without suggesting any theory of mind and its relation with matter. When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, How do you know that? I asked them for years. They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? They reject papers who submit doubts in the domain. It is equivalent, even if it looks more modern. The atheists around here hate more the agnostic than the Christians. They consider as crackpot any attempt to just doubt primary matter. And some of them have cult and quasi equivalent notion of God, when you ask the details. If you insist they can even invoke secrecy. Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation? Well, there is the case of China and the USSR who did. and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you in order to discredit them. It is explicit beliefs. It is true that some can doubt in private, but they will not say so in public, and will discredit you, i.e. the doubter, in name of non dogma, but yet dogmatic proposition. you are just lucky never have met that kind of sectarian form of atheism. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi meekerdb a= not or anti, so atheist is not a theist or is an antitheism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 13:27:52 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Dear Bruno: - As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the Löbian threshold. That´s absolutely right. But only when you add scarcity of resources, time and reproduction, that is, evolution, you can grasp the details of this religion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World ( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World ( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe). Question: How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe (dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of ideal gas) create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many scientists and philosophers to say that God doesn’t exist ? ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Charles Law is appropriate at or near absolute zero , because this law belongs to the particles of ' ideal gas' , it means that these particles can exist in the absolute vacuum: T=0K. no, not OK -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net I don't believe that you can explain perception without God (or something like Himn, perhaps Universal Mind) being the observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-11, 06:22:23 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World ( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World ( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe). Question: How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe (dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of ideal gas) create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many scientists and philosophers to say that God doesn? exist ? ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't believe that you can explain perception without God And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God just did it? If the God theory could actually explain something and not just chant God did it I'd go to church with you next Sunday and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't explain everything and that's true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there. There is no such thing as nearly zero just as there is no such thing as nearly infinite or nearly pregnant; the Third law of Thermodynamics says that you can never reach zero degrees Kelvin in a finite number of steps. And Charles's Law was developed long before Quantum Mechanics was discovered and even at the time it was known that it was only a approximation of how real world gasses behaved. Charles's Law worked pretty well at the limited temperature ranges available in the 19'th century. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
What is vacuum? =. The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex? / Paul Dirac ./ # The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be: What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word vacuum is a gross misnomer! / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg / # Wikipedia : “ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well defined, resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of space, how can we characterize either? “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime # Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic, said Peter Milonni from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. # Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy. If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this into particles, in line with E-Mc^2. / Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148. By Michael White and John Gribbin. / # Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it. / University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb./ # Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness – is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum, allowing light-light interactions. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html # When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything ! ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Empirical proofs can be ostensive. But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Almost nothing indeed. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true. You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it. :-) Why? Not sure I get the joke :? We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those evidences as a proof that the theory applies to reality. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Rog, Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply. Rich On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid. Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle? law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/11/2013 8:37 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I don't believe that you can explain perception without God And how do you explain perception WITH God except by saying God just did it? If the God theory could actually explain something and not just chant God did it I'd go to church with you next Sunday and handle venomous snakes with the best of them, but it can't. The religious like to complain that science can explain a lot but can't explain everything and that's true, but they forget that religion can't explain ANYTHING. The antinomy that theists can explain anything and hence fail to explain at all, arises from two different concepts of 'explain'. One is to satisfy curiosity and forestall further questions. The other is to describe causal relations among potentially observable events. I leave it to the reader which is favored by religions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/11/2013 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 1/10/2013 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Empirical proofs can be ostensive. But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Almost nothing indeed. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true. You should write, ...but will never empirically evidence it. :-) Why? Not sure I get the joke :? We can empirically evidence a theory, we just cannot take those evidences as a proof that the theory applies to reality. I was just tweaking you for using prove both for the transformation from axiom to theorem and for empirically testing a theory - right after you acknowledged they were quite different. The 'proof' than connects the axioms to the theorem (consequence) is completely different from 'proving' a theory is false (or true). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). -- Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong therefore we think that they have infinite parameters . socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
soc, that truth referring to what Bruno said. may or may not be true. You did not read the thread. Richard On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Truth is true !!! / Richard / Very good proof. . . . . . . and . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are beautiful . . . by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger, and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . . . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . . . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’ about 2500 years ago Plato wrote. =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi meekerdb Coincidence with Newton's laws proves, to me at least, that the earth orbits the sun rather than the inverse. There's too much mass on the sun to have it orbit the earth. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 15:55:18 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (G?el 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===… -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 18:56, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. But Bruno, you just said that matter came from infinities of discrete number relations The appearance of matter comes from infinities of discrete number relations. Those appearances themselves are like continuous dream. If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Are you granting that QM laws are arithmetic theorems on the level as those of Godel and Church? Yes. (I will be explicit on FOAR, on this). But everything is explained on the sane04 paper. The arithmetical quantization is given by []p , with []p = Bp Dt, with D = ~B~, and B = Gödel's *arithmetical* beweisbar (provability) predicate. An arithmetical version of a Bell inequality is []([]A []B) -[]([]A v []B) ([]A v []C) So you can argue from them like they were axioms? Yes. All formula are theorem in Löbian (enough rich, like PA or ZF) arithmetic, from the classical definition of knowledge, that we recover by using Theatetus'definition of knowledge in the arithmetical setting (with believable = provable, which makes sense for the ideally correct machine that we have decided to interview). Bruno Richard Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god- like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? Yes. the truth that you have children, for example. A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. OK. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. OK. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. But I prefer not using proof for that. It can only be misleading when we do applied logic. I prefer to call that empirical evidences. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Almost nothing indeed. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. I agree. Axioms comes from empirical evidences. The consequences of the axioms can be used to test the theory, and refute it, but will never prove it to be true. Bruno Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid. Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle’s law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===… -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/10/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote: On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). Why? Nobody has seen primary matter, but the believer in it usually attribute it a fundamental role in our existence. It was the third God or many Platonists (the most famous one being Aristotle). Of course it is not like the Christian God. Now the christian God is already very different for some american and european Christians. It's not a person, it didn't create the world, it doesn't care what people do, it has not dogma, no temples, no priesthood, no sacred writings. It's not like any god, except the liberal theologians god which can be anything. That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. I was just saying that many, if not all, atheists are already believer in some sort of God (in the greek sense, not in the Roman sense). But you've redefined 'God' (in the greek sense) so that anybody who believes anything is a theist? When atheists judge that there is no God (none at all, not even taoist one, in my neighborhood) they implicitly make primary matter into the God, How do you know that? Do they worship at a shrine of primary matter? Do they quote primary matter as a reason for legislation? and worst, they believe this explains everything, which can make them quite sectarian, arrogant and impolite (and acting like in the inquisition (actually much worst)). It is arrogant and impolite to attribute implicit beliefs to those who disagree with you in order to discredit them. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? Yes. the truth that you have children, for example. A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. OK. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier. That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are you playing some specific frame? That broadly though: Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic, interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings. And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 11:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/10/2013 6:20 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I have never understood what it means to be atheist. Sometimes it appears to mean existentialist not Christian god, another appearance is not organized religion, which both appear reasonable. Intuitively however, I've always asked myself: what are they talking about? as we're all invested in beliefs or working hypothesis (whatever you wanna call these structures primitively) of one sort or another. Physical, scientific, mystical, mathematical, computational, financial, political, biological, creative, group solidarity + individualism spectrum, and yes also beer, drugs, shopping attitudes etc. are all areas where you limit or enable mucking about with core assumptions, either skeptically distant or suspending disbelief, to avoid hell or approach some utopia in mind. Implied by every thought operation, every action, we at a certain point take a leap of faith, we bet on some belief, deity, working hypothesis. I don't see how an agent can act or decide without this, which is why I can't understand the proposition that entity exists without belief in something that transcends them, that they want or wish to avoid. Ok, you can blame me for not differentiating between absolutely static belief and work-in-progress working hypothesis, fine. But the result still is that some force of propositions have convinced or forced us to invest in them. I should maybe speak to more atheists to get it perhaps, or maybe somebody here can point me towards a flaw to get what people mean with atheist. Oddly, I often find the same this I take for granted attitude, that anything else makes me smile condescendingly, that even keeps me from bringing it up. Do you know what theist means? Brent If you could clarify your question, why you ask, it would be easier. That is so broad: what does anything mean in some absolute sense, or are you playing some specific frame? That broadly though: Greek root theos, so god/transcendental principle + ism, implying a more or less flexible belief, held by adherents. Whether anthropomorphic, interactive, or any other feature of deity in question, the term is used in more or less broad terms to denote belief it one or more supreme beings. And yes you could differentiate endlessly here... but to what end? Then you know what atheist means ... to denote nonbelief in one or more... Which entails believing in one or more other things selectively or believing non-belief. Either way, I grasp intuitively what people mean, but it is far from clear to me because of this. Mark -- Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
and the blood. Of course with the fashionable decorations of our time; Probably some eco-globalist-aborto-eugenesist cult with a greath leader that would suspend our rights, for the good of humanity and the planet, of course. I agree partially. But the Christian have politicized religion, where the greeks have succeeded in making it into a science, and today we have not yet come back to the scientific attitude in those matter. There is a strong resistance from fundamentalist atheists, more numerous than I thought possible. European atheism seems different than american atheism (which is often just agnosticism). Bruno 2013/1/8 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Yes, I agree with that, one clearly had to come before the other. Before some human invented God there was no need for another human to invent atheism. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,... It is an intrinsic weakness of the theological field: to be perverted by politics. But this is not a rational reason to abandon the field. On the contrary, it is even more politicized when it is abandoned by the academicians. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Richard Ruquist That could be so. But Wittgenstein and others believed that the meaning of a word is established through usage. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 11:37:47 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means until we understand what the opposite stands for. a sorta duality that math may be based on that may even be the basis of existence of how something can come from nothing. RR a semantic toe On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. Hmm... That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in the early XX century. If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the suicide, that has
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Am I wrong ? I don't think that complexity and Platonism (top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian intellect gets stuck. Complexity arise in numbers due to the intrinsic relation between addition and multiplication, which notably makes possible computations and self-reference, and separate truth (God) from provability (intellect). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the robotic truth can be approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian threshold. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. Hmm... That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to the others. Because
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Lol. Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? If not taken literally, it can perhaps help. But there is a risk of reifying the particles, or of interpreting the flux densities of infinities in a too much materialist sense. But Bruno, you just said that matter came from infinities of discrete number relations If you compensate with matrix- or simulacron-like illustration, that will be OK. You need to get the familiarity with the idea that those infinities of computations exists in arithmetic, and that it becomes matter appearances only from the number's pov as distributed on the whole UD* or (sigma_1) arithmetical truth. I can find that rather weird too. In the beginning I thought that this was just some steps toward a refutation of comp, but like with the Gödelian argument against mechanism, when made precise enough, the machine turns such argument in favor of comp. I would never have found comp plausible if there were not the strong evidence given by Gödel's theorem, Church thesis and QM. And of course, *many* problem are far from being solved (to say the least), but at least we have the tools to formulate them precisely. Bruno Are you granting that QM laws are arithmetic theorems on the level as those of Godel and Church? So you can argue from them like they were axioms? Richard Richard points and lines word geometry? Richard Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/9/2013 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. All correct and self-introspective machine will believe in (some) God. Keep in mind that atheists usually believe in some primary matter, which is a god-like entity, or a metaphysical hypothesis. That is dishonest in two ways. First, primary matter is not god-like except in your idiosyncratic redefinition of god (c.f. John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian). That atheists usually believe in some primary matter, is irrelevant. It is not a necessary part of being an atheist. You might as well say atheists usually drink beer - which is equally true. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. ? Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. They will need some non sharable notion of truth to give a value to values. What does 'truth' have to do with values? Do I love my children because of some 'truth'? A sharable notion of 'true' is needed in order to communicate and cooperate and effect changes in a shared world. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/9/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and was almost a synonym with truth. There was an implicit, but reasonable assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the theology baby with the clerical bath water. Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the idea that there is a reality which transcend us. Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that goes beyond experimental proof in scope. I prefer to keep the term proof in the strong logician's sense (formal or informal). I would talk only on experimental *evidence*. You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^1, but have no experimental evidences at all for that! And we know that the Earth orbits the Sun - but there is no mathematical proof of that. Mathematical proofs are always relative to axioms and rules of inference. Empirical proofs can be ostensive. So I think the two kinds of 'proof' have little in common. Mathematical proofs are about transforming one set of propositions into others. They are relevant to empirical propositions only insofar as there is an interpretation that maps the axioms to facts. Brent But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent with having a model, or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality. Bruno Richard By definition it cannot be proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like arithmetical truth has to appear for any sound machine. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Agreed, and I hope that truth is true . Richard Truth is true !!! / Richard / Very good proof. . . . . . . and . . ‘. . by Beauty that beautiful things are beautiful . . . by largeness that large things are large and larger things larger, and by smallness that smaller things ate smaller . . . . . . . by tallness one man is taller than another . . . . . . . and the shorter is shorter by the same ; . . . . .’ about 2500 years ago Plato wrote. =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations Sounds to much physicalist for me (or comp). -- Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) therefore we think that they have infinite parameters . socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
that reminds me that we do not really know what a word means until we understand what the opposite stands for. a sorta duality that math may be based on that may even be the basis of existence of how something can come from nothing. RR a semantic toe On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 wrote: Consider God, a word for Mind OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means. GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more neutral than Universe, which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not belong to what constitutes the being for the Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term God has acquired many christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian theory. God has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic god, but with a less person feature. I use the term God to designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role, and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus 'neoplatonism'. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. Why? because religion -or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is physical as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. Therefore, for the believer, God must be personal, among other things, or else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not includes. Sounds like you've studied John Clark's How to Become a Liberal Theologian. As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation of social beings. If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no inequivocal rules for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and intentions of others). I agreed with your point that social robots would develop social values. But that doesn't mean they would have to invent a supernatural robot who defined the values. Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal . Actually the first religions embued animals and weather with agency. There was no sharp line between science and religion because agency, which could be manipulated by prayer and sacrifice, was ubiquitous. Only later did the voice of the dead leader and dreams become the basis of spiritualism and eventually religion with shamans and priests. A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in conflict, sometimes violent. Which was the case in Mesopotamia around the time Judaism developed. Yaweh at first insisted on being the top god, over all the personal and household gods. Then later he evolved into the only god - as explained by Craig A. James in The God Virus. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and incognoscible Allah need a ruthless political Mahoma. The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp distinction between us and the others. Yes, it must be sad for theists who long for the good old days of the Aztecs, the Holy Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the unifying force of The Cultural Revolution,... A membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties. In this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization. That´s why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this sense, Christianity free us from the obedience
Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
On 1/8/2013 4:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/1/9 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/8/2013 12:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Le me add some meat here Nah. It's just your wishful thinking that everybody has to believe in God. We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. That will come as a shock to ten million atheists in the U.S. as well as those in Europe where they constitute a plurality of religious opinion. Dear Brent, Seriously: Atheism is a group of related religions. An atheist when hear his favourite author fire the same neurons that are fired when the most religious hear his televangelist: A group of ecologist hearing Al Gore have similar experiences than when a group of nuns hear the Pope. Patently false, since if you ask one of the ecologists what Al Gore said you will get a different answer than if you ask one of the nuns what the Pope said. If you dont´t accept that same physical phenomena in the brain are associated with the same mental experiences then we have a problem. You have a problem because above you just assert that the same physical phenomena were produced in two different brains by two different experiences. The same physical and mental phenomena can not be two nor three different things. There is a common circuitry in the brain that is working in a church, in a foatball match,, in a concert in the fans of a rock band. And there's a similar blood supply and all the same kinds of atoms and molecules. But there's also something different, otherwise the ecologist and nun would give the same report. in the discourse of a totalitarian dictator. Therefore is a single phenomenon with different names. We can not have a circuit for rock concerts, other for admiring a leader, other for the Pope. Other for Carlos Marx. One for God and another for holding the super-ego that repeat in our mid the words of of our dead father. or another circuit that make us to remember with stasis that famous scientist that we try to emulate. Do you understand? I understand you're trying to slip by an obviously fallacious argument that since two different things can evoked similar emotions they must be the same thing. The atheist like any other person is subject to the same laws of any other religion. It can be a firm believer, or unbeliever, nihilist or exceptic about dialectic materialism or the global warming. It can be comforted for their strength of his principles or repudiated by their fellows for their doubt about the core beliefs in the same way that a Muslim can experience the same about Allah. No, an atheist is person who doesn't believe theism, the religion that claims there is an all powerful supernatural person who created the world, who rewards and punishes, and answers prayers. If religions were TV channels then atheism would be OFF. Brent Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men. --- Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.