You're twisting words again... you cannot be both agnostic and a
believer... from what you wrote here and the fundamental inability to doubt
god by the way you constantly redifine it to always be the goal of the
theory and true by definition... you are a believer.
Quentin
Le 24 janv. 2015 09:27, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> a écrit :
>
> On 22 Jan 2015, at 16:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-01-22 16:37 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> In the end... if you cannot doubt god because of the way you define it...
>> then not only you're not atheist (seems obvious)... but you're not agnostic
>> either, you're what is called a believer...
>>
>>
>> No problem with this. Actually, it is because I am a believer that I am
>> not afraid of the use of reason, free speech, critical thinking, ... in
>> theology, and it is because I am a believer that I am really shocked by the
>> way the humans misuse the natural animal's faith in some reality.
>>
>>
>> Lao-tseu is totally right on this. The wise stay mute. Only the non
>> believer can asserts answers.
>>
>
> Well, you said before it was the agnostic that were wise... but now that
> you're not agnostic... it's the believer... seems more and more word
> playing.
>
>
> It is a subtle point. That is why I use G and G* to make it utterly clear,
> even translatable in the arithmetical language, or computer terms.
>
> In the arithmetical translation "seeing god" is mere consistency (<>t,
> ~beweisbar('f')), it is of the type true, but not justifiable rationally
> from the (consistent) machine's perspective.
>
> That is why I told you this in "private", and it is just a statement of
> hope.
>
> But the theory predict that machine can have "experiential/historical
> reason" to bet on <>t, or "see" <>t (according to the different views).
> Such machines know that in public talk, agnosticism is not "true" but
> polite or scientific, or modest, or ... all this is equivalent of being
> Löbian, in the ideal case (for the mathematical treatment).
> So such machines knows that the wise machine (who sees god) are mute on
> this, and will submit only questions, that is hypotheses, theories, etc.
> those are really only questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And believer like non-believer asserts things... and clearly you cannot
> doubt god because you want to use the god word, so god == anything that
> will let you use the word... so you're not agnostic and you assert thing
> and therefore not wise... there must be a logical flow in this... (I think
> it's god...).
>
>
>
> No, there is no logical flaw, it is about the truth *about* the machine,
> which the machine cannot justify, yet can still have some knowledge on them
> (and which indeed can be used to change itself and accelerate relatively to
> other machine).
>
> If you don't read the Boolos 1979 or 1993 book, read at least Smullyan
> Forever Undecided, which is an introduction to the logic G.
>
> I use (implicitly) Gödel's COMpleteness theorem (not his incompleteness)
> theorem, which is in some sense more fundamental. By that theorem, a theory
> is consistent (<>t, ~[] f) if an only if the theory has at least one model.
>
> So consistency is the syntactical way to express the (meta)-existence of a
> reality, so that the machine, when justifying incompleteness: <> t --->
> ~[] <> t, can be interpreted, in more Plotinian-Proclusian terms: if the
> one exist then I cannot justify rationally that the one exist.
>
> For a neopythagorian neoplatonist, if you believe in one reality, you
> already believe in one god.
>
> No (Löbian) theories can prove the existence of a model of itself, because
> that would be equivalent, by Gödel 1930 completness, to proving their
> consistency, which they can't (by Gödel 1931 incompleteness).
>
> An that is not entirely unrelated with the christian idea that we are
> finite creature, even finite mechanism, for some, by opposition to God that
> is infinite (like already with Plotinus).
>
> This remain true for every consistent recursively enumerable extension of
> PA.
>
> As a scientist I am agnostic, it is only deep inside that you can know the
> fixed point of the doubt. There, thanks to incompleteness the first person
> obeys a different logic, and it clarifies the difficulties that theologian
> and philosophers have with the notion of knowledge.
>
> It is counter-intuitive, (but it contains the intuitive part (S4, actually
> S4Grz, the logic of the knowable associated with the machine)). But G and
> G* are counter-intuitive.
>
> I do think that the hard problem of consciousness is solved by the non
> emptiness of most variant X of G, including G, of their X* minus X logic,
> and the emptiness of S4Grz* and S4Grz.
>
> All this relies on known relationship between computer science and
> mathematical logic.
> Gödel, Löb, Solovay, many others.
>
> Do you see the relationship between Gödel's second incompleteness theorem
> and the modal formula
>
> <>t -> ~[] <>t ?
>
>
> (<=>
>
> ~[]f -> ~[] ~ [] f,
>
> <==>
>
> []<>t -> ~<>t,
>
>
> which shows that in G (and thus for the machine 3p self-reference),
> consistency, <>t, is a simple solution to []x -> ~x.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The same with machine: the propositional theology is given by G* minus G.
>> It is the catalog of the solutions of
>>
>> []x -> ~x
>>
>> Those truth which goes without saying, and get awry when said, and which
>> paves the road to hell with the good intentions.
>>
>> I am a believer. I would not do research if I was not a believer. But I
>> am a scientist, and I know I can suggest only public theories and test
>> them. I can't made public ontological commitment (consider this post as
>> private!).
>>
>> Most strong-atheists are believers too, as most believe in things like
>> Big-Bang, Energy, Wave, and they "blasphem" in the greek-machine
>> theological sense (equivalent with asserting a proposition from G* minus G)
>> when they invoke those beliefs' contents as beyond doubt, that is as "non
>> hypotheses" or "obvious".
>>
>> With the general sense of God, we are all believers. It is quasi-trivial
>> for the humans, ("quasi", it still involves consciousness and some
>> reality), but it is not completely trivial to prove this for all ideally
>> correct machines. You need incompleteness and the fact that (löbian)
>> machines can justified their own incompleteness in the conditional way.
>>
>> I would like to add an explanation here, which is that the general
>> theology is a science, not the application of a theology to oneself. To
>> each machine M, ideally arithmetically sound, you can associate its proper
>> theology
>>
>> G*(M) minus G(M)
>>
>> where G*(M) and G(M) is the interpretation of the logic G*, and G, in the
>> machine turing-universal language.
>> In particular, []A is interpreted by "the machine M asserts A", in his
>> own language, for A some specific proposition.
>>
>> Then if the machine asserts any proposition of G*(M) minus G(M), the
>> machine get inconsistent and can assert anything.
>> But Löbian machine knows this, and actually, can justify why it needs to
>> be like that in case they are correct. Their own theology is not speakable,
>> but they can deduce the truth of them, and their mathematics, from
>> assumption of self-correctness, keeping the interrogation mark and
>> explaining that they do not pretend to prove or justify those beliefs,
>> which are more like hope.
>>
>> So theology, among the sciences, has a special status: it *cannot* be
>> applied normatively. Like a sacred text should be (!). It can inspire us,
>> and it is hard (for me) to not find that discourse (G* minus G)
>> tremendously interesting. It shows that the introspective machine find a
>> transcendental reality in her head, but has to stay mute about it, or talk
>> on it in a derived way, and insist that it is conditional, like insisting
>> we make the computationalist hypothesis, and that it requires an authentic
>> act of faith (the "yes" doctor).
>>
>> And this is valid for the other "proper" true but unprovable part of the
>> hypostases, with the corresponding nuances (X1* minus X1, Z1* minus Z).
>> Note that S4Grz1* = S4Grz1. The first person knowledge do confuse proof and
>> truth, in her perspective. That knowledge implies a self which has no
>> name/description: we don't know who we are, and we can know that if we
>> introspect oneself deep enough. It might explain the distinction between
>> the "little ego" and the "higher self" made by the mystics.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>> 2015-01-21 19:30 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 01:40, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2015 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The more I think about it, the more I doubt that these subjects were
>>>>>> simply "abandoned" in an innocent fashion. The problem is that beliefs
>>>>>> about fundamental reality are at the foundations of political power, and
>>>>>> the powerful know this, even if only intuitively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Read Craig A. James little book, "The Religion Virus" for a history of
>>>> religion from that standpoint.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The term religion is too large for such analogy.
>>>
>>> In a recent article of the french journal "La Recherche" there is a
>>> paper which shows that historians debunk Ernst Mach idea that science
>>> progressed *against* christianity, and that on the contrary, the root of
>>> modern science might relied in the idea that nature was a mechanism made by
>>> God. I already knew the more obvious relation between computationalism and
>>> christian's self-finiteness belief.
>>>
>>> With the greek One, religion is what science is for. The goal is going
>>> near truth, the tool is science. The goal evolves as much as the tool in
>>> the process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, since always. That is why we are mucky to be in a place where
>>>>> scientists have regained some freedom in some domain, but clearly not in
>>>>> all (theology and human science are still not done with the scientific
>>>>> attitude).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We're in a mucky place because a lot of theologians promote mucky
>>>> religions. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you can expect this will continue if we don't let theology going
>>> back to academy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When atheist politicians say that we must respect the Vatican, they
>>>>>> are agreeing on some border of power. They are saying, ok we can't have
>>>>>> absolute power but we can negotiate peace with the Vatican.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vatican and bishops love atheism, because atheists are their allies in
>>>>> preventing seriousness in theological matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, I went to a lecture by a theologian last night. He gave
>>>> a definition of theism, the same as mine: Belief in a supernaturally
>>>> powerful person who cares about human behavior and wants to be worshipped.
>>>> And he went on to say that all serious theology is a-theistic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No problem with that. Science by itself is agnostic, but as much about
>>> primary matter than any reality, we can only try religion, and change of
>>> religion, or change religion. A religion is a conception of reality, and it
>>> is based on the belief that there is a reality, that we can share some
>>> aspect of it, and discuss about the way to unify all the views and
>>> reflexion we can have on it.
>>>
>>> Now, you frighten me a bit about which theologian you are listening too,
>>> and I give you a tip, go back to the time theology was a science, that is
>>> before +523 in occident (and of course, if you study the theologians since,
>>> you will see many "saying sentences like above, but only in context of
>>> being able to develop other interesting ideas: that is, not all modern
>>> theologian believe in such naive theist god). But officially: the field is
>>> sick (authorianistist) since +523 in Occident, and about the eleventh
>>> century in Middle-East.
>>>
>>> Strong-atheism is a religion, and is dishonest when not saying so, as it
>>> is the belief in a primary physical universe or matter, object of the laws
>>> described in the book of physics.
>>>
>>> That might be true. We don't know. But we can know that this view is
>>> problematical if we assume there is no magic in the brain or in matter.
>>>
>>> It is nice because it illustrates the existence of a realm, a simple one
>>> conceptually (a tiny part of arithmetic), where the laws of physics
>>> originate.
>>>
>>> The difficulty to accept this is similar with the difficulty some
>>> accepted evolution. Perhaps.
>>>
>>> Read history of science. Humans pervert science all the time, for short
>>> run purpose, or for power purpose. For all of them we must distinguish the
>>> object of study from the humans theories which can always be wrong, if not
>>> escape the well guided practice (laic academy, laic school, agnostic
>>> presentations, encouragement of doubting, even mocking, *all* authorities,
>>> etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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/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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
