RE: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

2006-10-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

Lennart Nilsson writes:

 Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they 
 would be wrong, but because their belief in nature is shown to need an act 
 of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith).
 Bruno
 That is the most absurd statement so far…

Most theists I know would be aghast at the idea that their precious brain could 
be 
replaced by a digital computer (they imagine that God in Heaven would not do 
anything 
so crass as this). Only atheists and agnostics of my acquaintance will even 
consider 
the implications of computationalism, and even most of them either decide that 
it isn't 
true or, even if it is true, it's a bad idea. I guess our distant ancestors 
would have had the 
same attitude towards the idea that humans would one day drive cars and use 
computers.

Stathis Papaioannou
_
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

2006-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :

 Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in nature is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith).

Bruno

That is the most absurd statement so far… 


Unless you are confusing atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should explain why you find this absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that the modest scientist should not take nature for granted. Of course by nature, I mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something primitive, i.e. which is at the root of everything else. This does not necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of physical theories.
And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology, theology, number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite name, they are all imprecise enough.

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 

Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

2006-10-05 Thread jamikes



Lennart:
I would be reluctant to choose the "most absurd 
statement so far".

IMO an atheist is just denying 'god' (hence the 
ref. to 'theos'). 
Faith (any), however, is needed in what we call 
'science' in our reductionist glossary, to believe axioms, quantities, 
explanations of instrumental needle-movements, words from the ancient, the 
wisdom taught at college, the 'applied math' one scribbles, etc., 
A (religiously?)'agnostic' is usually 
meant as a believer (faithful) who has doubts and is not clear "what" to 
believe.
I would be in trouble to find a better word e.g. 
for my stance, a worldview without accepting hearsay (both religious fables and 
'scientific' marvels: givens, axioms, universality of human logic, etc.) 
choosing rather a "scientific agnosticism" positing that we 
will NEVER achieve a clear knowledge with our impediments of the human mind. 


I agree with Bruno's denial of 'fundamental 
sciences' (below) with a reversal: all those domains are extracted models of the 
totality (who knows what that may be?) in topical boundaries. So I would 
call none of them 'fundamental'. I agree: they are imprecise, because all 
disregard (mostly) the "beyond boundary" impact as 'out of observation' 
noise.

John Mikes

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lennart 
  Nilsson 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  
  Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:15 
  AM
  Subject: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An 
  alternative to a timless Platonia
  
  
  To 
  be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i 
  ”nature”.
  
  
  
  
  
  Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno MarchalSkickat: den 5 oktober 2006 
  17:07Till: everything-list@googlegroups.comÄmne: Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An 
  alternative to a timless Platonia
  
  Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart 
  Nilsson a écrit :
  Only 
  atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, 
  but because their belief in "nature" is shown to need an act of faith (and 
  atheists hate the very notion of faith).BrunoThat 
  is the most absurd statement so far… 
  Unless you are confusing 
  atheism and agnosticism, or ... you should explain why you find this 
  absurd. the UDA precisely illustrates that the "modest scientist" 
  should not take "nature" for granted. Of course by nature, I 
  mean the aristotelian conception of nature as something primitive, i.e. which 
  is at the root of everything else. This does not 
  necessarily jeopardize the actual *theories* of nature, just the 
  interpretation of those theories. This is a good thing given that 
  physicists today admit there is no unanimity on the interpretation of physical 
  theories.And I argue since that if we assume comp physics cannot be the 
  fundamental science, it has to be derive from psychology, biology, theology, 
  number theory, computer science, well chose your favorite name, they are all 
  imprecise 
  enough.Brunohttp://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 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this 
  group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- 

  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 
  10/03/06
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---