Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell them we're agnostic about God Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind. we will be telling them that we have no good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. Then it is like rejecting the object of a theory, because we disagree with a theory. It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat. There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits). The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment. Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is false. With comp true and false are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories. You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction. Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense. I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a classical teleportation). If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on everything. But that definition implies science is no better than guessing and all opinions are equal. I think we need to keep a distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of having good evidence for. Well you right, and I just have insisted on this on the FOR list. But yes, I do believe that a scientist never know for sure, and that he does not commit *any* definitive ontological commitment. All theories are hypothetical. But this does not mean that all theories are equal. Some theories takes more time to be refuted. Some theories are more fertile, and can be more interestingly false. A scientist can judge a theory much better than another, without saying I believe it to be true. He will say I believe it to be more plausible than some other theories. We have to take our theory seriously until we find a better theory. Scientific theories are never proved. That doesn't mean we're agnostic about whether the Earth is flat or spheroidal. We can judge that spheroidal is far more plausible, and useful, given our current knowledge, but we can hardly say that science has proved that the earth is spheroidal, or that earth really exists. In science there are just no proof about anything concerning reality. Only radical atheists (unlike atheists like Carolyn Porco) can pretend that science has proved anything. Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is the quest of the truth, but it is a quest. I could say that religion is the goal, and science the means. It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to figure a mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Bruno, you navigate into perillous waters. Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness. You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice and it works for you. It does not work for me: I am still in the undecidedness and whatever I want to grab dissipates upon touching. I do not state to be an atheist, for - as you correctly pointed out - it would necessitate a 'god' to deny and I do not get to such definition. I claim to be a scientific agnostic, questioning whatever traceable to a human 'mind's' (?) understanding and its limitations (including numbers - cf: David Bohm). In my approach we are limited and can extend our thinking only within our limits. I try to do my best - knowing that it is not enough. The developing human 'mind' (= mental capabilities altogether) went through stepwise enwidenment including the religious faith and your extension into a universalized 'god' idea etc. This is why I cringe when accepting ancient ideas - definitely in an earlier stage of our development - *to be applied*to our 'later stage' (I almost wrote: more advanced - assuming we IMPROVE). I climb on the shoulders of giant oldies - not to see exactly as far as they do, but further. What do I see? something unexplainable - beyond my limitations. And definitely beyond the horizon of those whose shoulders I climbed onto. What does not mean that I am smarter. I just have a vision I don't understand. I enjoyed your post - thank you - and warn you: going all the way may lead you into deep agnosticism and you may lose the grip on the assumed 'reality' that you are holding on today. I can afford it at my age, but you have work to do in a world that does not appreciate in science the I DON'T KNOW position. Best regards John Mikes On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Kim, Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very nice talk. I appreciate a lot. She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is agnostic. I believe in God (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g = 'God' exists, ~ = negation) But B~g, the athesist statement, is a religious statement too. Atheism is a religion. (and doubly so for the materialist atheists). Crazily enough, I note she shows this in the exact manner of the introductory chapter of Conscience et Mécanisme). So honest atheists exists. Not so sure why she said she believes (religiously) in the non existence of God, without saying what she means by the word, especially that later she talk of science as the quest for the truth, but with comp the mathematical notion of truth (relative to a machine and relative to the possible machine views) obeys literally to the notion of God in the Greek Theology of Plato (according to my own understanding of Plato, but confirmed by Plotinus and Hirschberger). Mainly 'God' = the transcendent human-ineffable truth we are invited to search/explore/contemplate. Making Science, the quest of the truth, like Carrolyn Porko did (two times, at the two third of that video), is the basic axiom of Plato's theology. It makes science and reason (and mathematics, and music, ...) the most basic tools in the search of the admittedly religious (by science modesty!) truth. * * * Let me give you 3, (3! yes there is one more!) basic reasons to consider Digital Mechanism as a theology (actually a framework for variate theologies (Mechanism will not stop all possible religious conflicts, on the contrary given the existence of very different possible practices, like overlapping or not with the duplicate ... ). - 1) To say yes to the doctor, even if some oracle guaranties the competence of the doctor and the accuracy of the comp substitution level, etc, is an irreductible act of faith in the possibility of a (relative) digital reincarnation. - 2) It is a scientific theology in the following precise sense: To each machine, or machine's state, (or machine relative description) we associate the set of true arithmetical sentences concerning that machine (described in arithmetic, say). Roughly speaking: Science = provability Religion = truth (in the spirit, I am humble and modest, and I search) Then, not only a universal machine can introspect itself and discover the gap between truth and provability. It can not only discover the unnameability of its own truth notion, but a very rich (in term of provability power) machine (like ZF) can study a big (not all) part of the theology of a more simpler Löbian machine, like Peano-Arithmetic. So although a machine cannot know that she is correct, she can lift the invariant theology of simpler lobian machine. Of course she cannot assert she has proved those statement, but she can assert that those are probably true as far as she is correct, and comp is correct. But there is a third reason.
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell them we're agnostic about God Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are *not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.) use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind. we will be telling them that we have no good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. Then it is like rejecting the object of a theory, because we disagree with a theory. It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat. There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits). When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a better theory about the shape of the Earth. If I disagree with the theory that human events are controlled by immortal beings living on top of Mt. Olympus, should I still entertain the proposition that immortal beings live on Mt. Olympus as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Am I a dishonest atheist because I don't believe in Zeus? The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment. Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is false. With comp true and false are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories. Then to say you uncertain about the existence of God when speaking to non-theologian Christians or Muslims or Mormons you are being a dishonest agnostic. This can be a very convenient position for academics in the U.S. where the funding of research may depend on politicians who are sensitive to the votes of believers. You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually claim to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does leads to contradiction. Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense. I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct machine can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a classical teleportation). If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on everything. But that definition implies science is no better than guessing and all opinions are equal. I think we need to keep a distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of having good evidence for. Well you right, and I just have insisted on this on the FOR list. But yes, I do believe that a scientist never know for sure, and that he does not commit *any* definitive ontological commitment. All theories are hypothetical. But this does not mean that all theories are equal. Some theories takes more time to be refuted. Some theories are more fertile, and can be more interestingly false. A scientist can judge a theory much better than another, without saying I believe it to be true. He will say I believe it to be more plausible than some other theories. We have to take
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
On 14 Nov 2009, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell them we're agnostic about God Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are *not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.) use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy. Yes, but if you use science 'against them, you make science a pseudo- religion, and you give them more braids. If we don't get back to 'serious (meaning hypothetical) theology, pseudo-religion will continue. Even if you take the 'theology' of the universal machine as a toy theology, it is remarkable how it explains the difference between science and theology. Science is *the* tool of those whose faith is not based on rumors. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind. we will be telling them that we have no good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. Then it is like rejecting the object of a theory, because we disagree with a theory. It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat. There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits). When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a better theory about the shape of the Earth. Exactly. If I disagree with the theory that human events are controlled by immortal beings living on top of Mt. Olympus, should I still entertain the proposition that immortal beings live on Mt. Olympus as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Of course not. I am not aware such theory explains anything new, or actually anything at all. Am I a dishonest atheist because I don't believe in Zeus? No. But as an atheist, who *believes there is a no God, you may hurt the sensibility of someone who find the idea or concept deep and interesting and may be some theologies are less wrong than other ... And most atheists are doubly believers. They believe in the inexistence of God, but many believe in the existence of Matter (some primitive matter explaining everything). A a scientist I am completely agonstic: I don't believe in God I don't believe in the inexistence of God I don't believe in Matter (primary one) I don't believe in the non existence of Matter. I do find plausible that whatever I am, I may be Turing emulable, and all I say is that in that case the overall picture is No Matter but some 'truth' about a universal dreamer. This includes (by UDA) its physical realities. Is it so astonishing that digital mechanism could make eventually physics a branch of Theoretical Computer science? The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment. Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is false. With comp true and false are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories. Then to say you uncertain about the existence of God when speaking to non-theologian Christians or Muslims or Mormons you are being a dishonest agnostic. I don't understand. Be them Mormons, Muslims, Christians , ... atheists or
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
On 14 Nov 2009, at 17:48, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, you navigate into perillous waters. I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas on the border of the non controlable. Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness. Yes, indeed. You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice and it works for you. It is a theorem that is does not change the general idea. I have tried the combinators, but the advantage of numbers is that their are taught already in high school, and also, the most know Löbian machine, Peano Arithmetic, has indeed those high school beliefs has only beliefs. It is more simpler, and its chnage nothing for the comp reasoning. It does not work for me: I am still in the undecidedness and whatever I want to grab dissipates upon touching. We have to be in undecidedness for reason of self-consistency. I do not state to be an atheist, for - as you correctly pointed out - it would necessitate a 'god' to deny and I do not get to such definition. I claim to be a scientific agnostic, questioning whatever traceable to a human 'mind's' (?) understanding and its limitations (including numbers - cf: David Bohm). In my approach we are limited and can extend our thinking only within our limits. I try to do my best - knowing that it is not enough. It is *never* enough, for any honest universal machine/entity. The developing human 'mind' (= mental capabilities altogether) went through stepwise enwidenment including the religious faith and your extension into a universalized 'god' idea etc. This is why I cringe when accepting ancient ideas - definitely in an earlier stage of our development - to be applied to our 'later stage' (I almost wrote: more advanced - assuming we IMPROVE). Why? I think that when we discover an error in a theory, or in case of repeated failures, we may have to backtrack. I climb on the shoulders of giant oldies - not to see exactly as far as they do, but further. Sometimes progress can blind you on older simpler ideas which suddenly can get new interpretation. plotinus lacked the universal machine/ number, but was close (in its chapter on numbers). What do I see? something unexplainable - beyond my limitations. OK. And definitely beyond the horizon of those whose shoulders I climbed onto. You can't know that. What does not mean that I am smarter. I just have a vision I don't understand. OK, but they may not understand too. Most mystics insists they don't understand. I enjoyed your post - thank you - and warn you: going all the way may lead you into deep agnosticism and you may lose the grip on the assumed 'reality' that you are holding on today. I can afford it at my age, but you have work to do in a world that does not appreciate in science the I DON'T KNOW position. I think people like David Deutsch, and many others agree that science is the don't know per excellence. We try to make clear some beliefs and pictures and to see the consequences. But I know some does not yet know that (that science = doubt). Kind regards, 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-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=.
Re: Arguably The World's Greatest Woman
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2009, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote: Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell them we're agnostic about God Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. Many being a few thousand? But there are billions of Christians who are *not* theologians and a large fraction of them (at least in the U.S.) use their votes and money to make Christian dogma public policy. Yes, but if you use science 'against them, you make science a pseudo- religion, and you give them more braids. If we don't get back to 'serious (meaning hypothetical) theology, pseudo-religion will continue. Even if you take the 'theology' of the universal machine as a toy theology, it is remarkable how it explains the difference between science and theology. Science is *the* tool of those whose faith is not based on rumors. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind. we will be telling them that we have no good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good reason to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. Then it is like rejecting the object of a theory, because we disagree with a theory. It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat. There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits). When we disagree with the Earth being flat it is because we have a better theory about the shape of the Earth. Exactly. If I disagree with the theory that human events are controlled by immortal beings living on top of Mt. Olympus, should I still entertain the proposition that immortal beings live on Mt. Olympus as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Of course not. I am not aware such theory explains anything new, or actually anything at all. Am I a dishonest atheist because I don't believe in Zeus? No. But as an atheist, who *believes there is a no God, you may hurt the sensibility of someone who find the idea or concept deep and interesting and may be some theologies are less wrong than other ... And most atheists are doubly believers. They believe in the inexistence of God, but many believe in the existence of Matter (some primitive matter explaining everything). A a scientist I am completely agonstic: I don't believe in God I don't believe in the inexistence of God I don't believe in Matter (primary one) I don't believe in the non existence of Matter. I do find plausible that whatever I am, I may be Turing emulable, and all I say is that in that case the overall picture is No Matter but some 'truth' about a universal dreamer. This includes (by UDA) its physical realities. Is it so astonishing that digital mechanism could make eventually physics a branch of Theoretical Computer science? The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea of infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I did not. For me God refer to the all transcendant and ineffable things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are searching. Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say genetics is crap because of Lyssenko. The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any theory. Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not reject for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment. Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is false. With comp true and false are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories. Then to say you uncertain about the existence of
