On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments.
why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?
To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying "Now we have the
answer to the fundamental question", which is just a crackpot kind of statement.
That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you taken up mind reading,
Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and
god=matter. What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the
world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining
matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively,
But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only by the
dream argument.
I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but that instruments,
apparatus, measurement results were.
physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly
what Tegmark has done. So you are factually wrong assuming "matter" is some blinding
constraint on physics.
Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is even an unconscious
dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that idea. the success of aristotle is
related to that.
The reason FPI is "ignored" by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist judge
there is more progress to be made elsewhere. Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but
he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable.
To say "I don't believe in God" is quite clear to all those people who write
dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are
answered.
This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me that physicalism
is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those are known as fundamentalist
atheists (even by moderate atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name,
etc.
When Mach said, "I don't believe in atoms." did it imply he knew what was
fundamental?
That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a theory. It is a
concept.
Tell it to the bible thumpers.
Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is still a taboo
subject.
Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.
I don't "defend" it; I accept that they know what their own words mean when they explain
it to me - and I find the concept they have explained and named "God" unbelievable. You
seem to want to tell them that when they say "God" they don't mean what they think they
mean and instead they must mean what you want the word to mean.
For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to
others.
Show one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God" can be
said by an agnostic. But when said with the meaning that God has no referent, it means
either "I disbelieve in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in the
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem" (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no answer. In fact those people
ignore even the dialog).
OK, that's one. To say that "I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God"
when said with the meaning that God has no referent, may well mean that "God" is a word
that has been given so many inconsistent meanings that I find no sense in it and I see no
reason to try to put any in. OR it might mean that I fail to believe in a mystic
principle that organizes the universe and fine-tunes it to be hospitable to humans. OR
it might mean I fail to believe a race of aliens that have created this universe in a
digital simulation and want to be worshipped for it. So it is a logical error to infer:
it means either "I disbelieve in fairy tales" which is trivial or it means "I believe in
the modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem"
Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences exists at all for
it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone, once you take the original definition
which is at the base of fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in
that domain.
First, it's NOT "the original definition"; it's just an OLD definition that you like. The
original definition of a god was a superhuman demiurge who caused inexplicable events like
volcanoes, storms, disease, and motion of the planets. "God" was defined by the Jews as a
supergod who comprehended all the powers of other gods and also defined right and wrong
for the Jews and insisted on being worshipped according to certain rituals.
It is the bet in a fundamental reality and the acknowledgment we don't know it.
No, that's goar.
Brent
--
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.
