Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote: Hi guys, Regarding Descartes. There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion, each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in only one form, either in science or in the Bible. WHOA! Talk about parochial. I guess Roger hasn't heard of the Quran, the Tao, the Eightfold Way, Dianetics, Wicca, the Torah,... The interesting thing is that wars are fought over divine TRUTHs, be not over scientific knowledge. It is the same, as you can see through history. Just that scientific knowledge impose itself in the shorter run than fundamental knowledge. Science is just an attitude of modesty, religion is the belief that, not science, but what science tries to handle, makes sense, and it motivates (fundamental) research. Of course humans, and even nature, perverts science and religion all the time for reason of dishonest selfish special local short term interests. That's part of life. 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: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:35, Roger wrote: IMHO Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal logic of Plato, final causes. Eternal truth, not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No. Whoa! You are close to Platonism. Nice (with respect to comp). Science deals with the Kingdom of Earth: the contingent world of Aristotle and Lebniz. Contingent facts, not eternal truth. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I can be OK with that. We can be more precise by postulating comp, as many contingency become absolutely contingent. In particular the computational states become necessarily contingent. We have p- []p (p - necessary possible p): it makes the accessibility relation among worlds symmetrical, and something physical is something repeatable in principles. For a modal logician, Kripke is a big progress on Leibniz, because Kripke relativizes the modalities to the 'actual world'. Leibniz always works implicitly in one modal logic (known as S5). S5 is the only modal logic which cannot be interpreted in arithmetic, at least not in the self-referential approach to cognition. There are billions (even a continuum to be exact) of modal logic. Each defines its on notion of contingence and necessity. But both Aristotle, and Leibniz (and even Gödel, arguably) single out S5. More on this later perhaps. Bruno The other remarks of yours are mankind's mistaken views of both. - Have received the following content - Sender: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-18, 06:26:11 Subject: Re: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote: Hi guys, Regarding Descartes. There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion, each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in only one form, either in science or in the Bible. WHOA! Talk about parochial. I guess Roger hasn't heard of the Quran, the Tao, the Eightfold Way, Dianetics, Wicca, the Torah,... The interesting thing is that wars are fought over divine TRUTHs, be not over scientific knowledge. It is the same, as you can see through history. Just that scientific knowledge impose itself in the shorter run than fundamental knowledge. Science is just an attitude of modesty, religion is the belief that, not science, but what science tries to handle, makes sense, and it motivates (fundamental) research. Of course humans, and even nature, perverts science and religion all the time for reason of dishonest selfish special local short term interests. That's part of life. 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: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote: Hi guys, Regarding Descartes. There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion, each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in only one form, either in science or in the Bible. WHOA! Talk about parochial. I guess Roger hasn't heard of the Quran, the Tao, the Eightfold Way, Dianetics, Wicca, the Torah,... The interesting thing is that wars are fought over divine TRUTHs, be not over scientific knowledge. 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: Descartes and the turf war between science and religion
Hear Hear! On 8/17/2012 2:32 PM, Roger wrote: Hi guys, Regarding Descartes. There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion, each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in only one form, either in science or in the Bible. But IMHO this is a woefully confused debate on both sides, because the Bible is not a science textbook, it is a manual of spiritual and moral practice. IMHO early genesis is a spiritual allegory, not a textbook on cosmology. It was written not for scientists, for scientists do not have any concept of meaning, but a spiritual manual for the children of God. By allegory I don't mean that the Bible is fiction, for higher truths cannot be conveyed very well in scientific language, they are better suited to poetry and allegory. And science cannot convey meaning at all. Meaning can only be conveyed in story form. Not that the story is false, but that meaning requires a story form. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-15, 12:09:45 *Subject:* Re: Misusing Descartes' model On 8/15/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:14, Roger wrote: Hi Jason Resch � You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two completely different substances-- mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand. And it was also easy to follow Newton, because燽odies acted as if they transferred energy or momentum. � In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being essentially left out. Not in the meditation. God is needed, actually the goodness of God is needed to avoid the dream argument consequence. When you feel something real, it is real, because God will not lie to you, basically. I don't follow Descartes, on this, but his text In search of the truth makes me think that Descartes was himself not quite glad with this. Dear Bruno and Roger, 牋� We can avoid the intentionally not a liar question by noticing that a physical world requires incontrovertibly (no contradictions) so that there could be persistent objects. My conjecture is that this obtain automatically if all interactions require a floor or level where all statements that might be communicated are representable by a Boolean algebra. I suspect that the substitution level of COMP is a version of this idea. So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who actually did these adjustments, could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as material. � At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and Descartes (materialism), which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body problem --- until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as in Dennet's materialism. � No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into their model of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe In my opinion, Descartes too, but was perhaps willingly unclear to avoid problems with the authorities. 牋� Many writers in that epoch had to moderate their words, especially given the example that was made of Giordano Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ 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.
