On 12 Jul 2013, at 20:33, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On 07/10/2013 11:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I use atheists in the (Google) sense of B~g. ~Bg is agnosticism (in
the mundane common sense).
Some atheists seem to oscillate between the two definitions,
opportunistically.
The issue is that both of those require some specific 'g' to be
claimed,
before either of them may apply.
That is not correct. 'g' can be very fuzzy for asserting ~Bg. Indeed
the more 'g' is fuzzy, the more ~Bg is the logical option.
But, on the contrary, B~g needs a precise sense for g.
That is why we ask the atheists which notion of 'g' he has in mind. If
is Santa Klaus, atheism is normal, and I am atheist too. If 'g' is
the Plotinus ONE, then arithmetical truth provides a model for such
ONE, from the points of view of the machine, which verify the main
"God axiom" (it explains where machines come from and why they share
deep dreams obeying physical laws).
But first 'g' has to be well-defined, coherent, and logically
possible,
before either of the above can even make sense. My experience is that
few religious claims make it past this hurdle; there is therefore not
really anything to believe or not believe in.
I cannot define consciousness, but I believe in consciousness.
I cannot define (arithmetical) truth, but I tend to believe in it.
I cannot define what reality is, yet I believe in it.
There are many things that we cannot define, yet we believe in it, or
tend to find them plausible.
So we're left with the state of our belief system unchanged, and
optimization of our finite resources means we just don't think about
these sorts of things.
I suppose that's neither 'atheism' or 'agnosticism'.
No, that is agnosticism. You just don't believe in god because you
wait for some definition, or for more information or evidence, or
refutation, whatever, etc. It is my position.
Have you read UDA? Sometimes I define God by what you can still
believe in when assuming computationalism. It is not a primary
physical universe. That's the main point.
In that setting it appears to be something without name, at the origin
of all experiences and beliefs. It matches well with the negative
theology of the neoplatonician and the mystics, and the matter we get
matches well with the Plotinus' theory of matter, and it is testable,
and tested already on "simple" physical assertions.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
