Dear Bruno, congrats to yur interjected question: *"What does not exist then?"* It is cute. If I really HAVE to reply: *"The R e s t of the world".* And if you insist to spell it out, you just 'create' it. <G>
I appreciate your mostly agreeing words, one question though: how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?* somebody suggested to say 'organism' au lieu de machine, but it is not a fair transformation. Finally I am too ignorant to appreciate 'ontological' in my worldview: in an *everything* that constantly changes it is hard to see 'being' vs. 'becoming'. John M On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 05 Aug 2012, at 22:33, John Mikes wrote: > > Entertaining exchange on an 'existing' topic - that is denied. > > My usual stance: I am not an atheist because an atheist needs (a - more?) > god(s) to deny. - "god" is a word still looking to be identified. As we > read most 'denyers' assign the ultimate origin to such concept. Me, too: > the infinite complexity (beyond our capability to comprehend). Does it have > 'free will'? or 'conscious mind'? logical concluding capability? I am not > sure 'it'(?) *"has"* anything. > > > OK. > > > Not in our terms at least. The *'infinite' complexity* is a mere > 'everything' in relation to everything beyond our concepts. > Bruno had a 'cute' definition for theology (I could not repeat it now) and > called 'us' gods. Nobody can deny his right to do so. > > > It is frequent for the mystics. I usually distinguish the outer god (= > what is ultimately "really real") and the inner God, which is the aspect of > the outer God which might be living in each if us, and perhaps be us. > > > > Denigrating faith is a pastime for the mental elite, yet without faith > (and the rules ensured for the 'believers') humanity would not have > survived so far in it's wickedness, brutality, or simply by selfishness. > > > I agree. In fact denying God is a way to impose some other God. I don't > think we can live more than one second without some belief in some God. The > Löbian machine, when doing inference induction on themselves are bounded up > to be "theological" as a simple consequence of incompleteness. Such Löbian > "bet-doing" machines are bounded up to discover that truth is beyond their > ability of justification. that will drive a natural curiosity in them, and > also will make them forever unsatisfied, and growing on transfinite ladders > of goals. > > > > It was a small price paid for the priests and prophets to help humanity > survive. Did it slip out? you bet. Always. > > Please remember: I take 'existing' in terms of anything, having occurred > in somebodies mind as a (rationale, or weird?) idea. Impossibilities > included. > > > What does not exist then? > > > > (And so far nobody answered my question satisfactorily (for me) to show > a justification for the (religious?) god-concept from *outside the box*(not > induced by some hint to any faith-related momenta, dream, etc.). So > 'god' exists IMO, because it is set into many minds (even if not > identically).) > > > This assumes mind, persons, at the ontological level. It seems you make > things more complex by not delineating what is existing ontologically (like > numbers with comp) and epistemologically like matter, dreams, > consciousness, etc. > > Bruno > > > > It is a long winded topic, not likely to close with agreement. > > John M > > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> John, I provide another answer to your last comment to me: >> >> On 03 Aug 2012, at 17:34, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> >>> > Define "theology" >>> >> >> The study of something that does not exist. >> >> >> Not so bad after, after all. In AUDA the machine "theology" can be >> defined by something which is supposed to be responsible, willingly or not, >> for my existence, and which I cannot prove to exist. I remeber having >> already some times ago provided this definition. >> >> Then, the logic of theology is given, at the propositional level, by G* >> minus G. (if you have read my posts on those modal logics and Solovay >> theorem). For example <> t (consistency, ~[]f) belongs to G* minus G. >> Consistency is true for the machine, but it cannot prove it. Yet the >> machine can guess it, hope it, find it or produce it as true with some >> interrogation mark. >> >> Theology is the study of the transcendent truth, which can be defined, in >> a first approximation, by the non provable (by the machine) truth. >> >> > Define "God" >>> >> >> The God I don't believe in is a omniscient omnipotent being who created >> the universe. If you define God, as so many fans of the word but not the >> idea do, >> >> >> I remain astonished why atheists defend a so particular conception of >> God. This confirms what I have already explained. Atheism is a variant of >> christianism. They defend the same conception of God than the Christians, >> as you do all the time. >> Note that philosophers use often the term "God" in the general and >> original sense of theology: as being, by definition, the transcendental >> cause of everything. >> >> >> >> as "a force greater than myself" then I am a devout believer because I >> believe in gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. I >> believe in bulldozers too. >> >> >> But I have already told you that God is supposed to be responsible for >> our existence; which is not the case for the bulldozer. But gravity and >> physical force/matter could have been a more serious answer, as it describe >> the perhaps primary physical world, and that can obey the definition of God >> I gave, for a physicalist, and is indeed again a common belief of >> christians and atheists. I am agnostic, and correct computationalist are >> "atheists" with respect to such material God. >> >> 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. > > > 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.
