Bruno wwrote: 'science is agnostic,, that's why we need to put back theology in science, so that we can develop agnostic theories or narratives, precise enough to show them wrong, and progress... Did I misunderstand it? we developp FAITH (theology) in agnostically developed theories and progress by showing them wrong? so we may 'believe' what is proven wrong - only?
Then again John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com>: > To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm > Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact > Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, > so you can decry a 'possibility' of such? > Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'? > JM > Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: JM: > to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the star > Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific speculation, > rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point of view-made > your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not > go for the highest hanging fruit? > > So we should join the crowd of "physical Universe" figment believers who just churn round and round the wise explanations of misunderstood phenomena since the old Greeks (maybe longer ago)? What you say is all to believe the figments (their "nth consequences" upon the mth explanations) what "Saint Science" teaches? True: human technology is miraculous, but so is the swimming skills of fish and hunting habits of the tiger. Or and ant hill in action. By establishing what we don't believe (agnostically) we never get further ahead. BTW I am studying the differences between the meaning how diverse languages use 'anticipate', 'presume', 'expect', 'assume', and some more in (a creative?) progressing - into new domains. How do we learn "new"? On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote: > > What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our > "optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the > mth imaginary idea. > The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and > exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic > mass murderer - ha ha). > Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations, > hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting > in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice', > forgiveness' and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first. > Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood > observations - and - mathematics. A huge system. > > Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to > vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into > imperialistic warring. > Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the > global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and > less rainfall etc.) > Something like that... > > > Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in science, > so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives, precise enough to > show them wrong, and progress. > > The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he fact > that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence (verbal or with > bullets). > > I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why for > all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your mind and > recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It is the > pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can hope for. > > But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just happen > that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many consequences. > > For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work them > out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma or truth. > > In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but simple > assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without some > assumption, in the public setting. > > Bruno > > >>> 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout.
