On 23 Apr 2015, at 03:04, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your
strange non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue
over definitions so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you
give me as long as it's clear and you use it consistently.
> God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth
which explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.
That is 100% inconsistent with what you said in your post just a few
hours ago, you said your definition of God was NOT a intelligent
conscious being who created the universe and knows everything
including what our prayers are. Make up your mind! How can I say if
I believe in "God" or not if you keep changing the definition of the
word every few hours?
See Liz's answer.
> I do not believe that god is an unintelligent blob, nor do I
believe it is not an unintelligent blob.
Yes that's what I thought. Or to say the same thing with different
words, what you believe is neither true nor false, what you believe
is so worthless it's not even wrong, what you believe is gibberish.
> Definitions of words are arbitrary but both parties in a debate
must agree on those meanings or they literally don't know what
they're arguing about.
> You talk like if some person have problem with all this. Only
fundamentalist believers have problems here, not scientists (as far
as I know).
So in your Humpty Dumpty dictionary a "fundamentalist believer" is
somebody who believes that in having a debate maybe just maybe it
might be a good idea to know what the hell the argument is about.
And this should not be confused with a "fundamentalist aristotelian"
which is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST
physicist who ever lived and even in the field of philosophy was
vastly overrated.
Right, but you seem sometimes to defend "Aristotle theology".
In my opinion, Aristotle was a good physicist, because he begins the
theory, and was clear enough to be refuted.
Hi (Aristotle) theology is unclear to me, so I reserve my opinion on
it, but what we call Aristotelians, are those who believe or assume
some "Primary Matter.
The platonist, in a large sense, are those who doubt the (primary)
existence of that primary matter, and are open to the idea that Matter
might be an emergent or secondary concept. This as lead to the
beginning of (systematic) mathematics. At the start, "mathematician"
meant "mathematicalist", people, who, like Xeusippes, defended the
idea that the ultimate reality is described by mathematics, and that
physics is a sort of contingency. With comp, the ultimate reality is a
part of arithmetic, but physics is not a contingency: physics is the
"absolute" part of the machine's observable modality: an ivariant for
both consciousness and phi_i (and thus the dream problem, the measure
problem, etc.).
You ask me a definition of God. There are none. God is a term like
consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. I use the more
general one, on which most people agree: the term "God" designates the
ONE on which we bet as being the creator, or the reason, or the cause,
or the explanation of everything.
Then you can compare the religions, all of them, including the monist
materialist one ("atheist").
A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An
atheist can agree that "The material reality" plays the role of God,
with that definition, as he believes that there is a physical material
reality, and that it is the cause or explanation of everything.
That general definition helps to be as neutral as possible, when
reasoning with the computationalist hypothesis.
Another reason to use God, in that sense, is that it helps to remind
that the assumption of a primitive physical universe is an assumption.
There are evidence for a physical universe, but there are not much
evidence for a primary physical universe. On the contrary, the
difficulties of the mind-body problem have been a constant remind that
science has not get many clues on that problem, except the "brain-
machine" and now the discovery of computer science. Then the quantum
interference shows that the formalism of QM kicks back, and leads some
physicists, like tegmark, to also contemplate the possibility that
physics is not the fundamental science.
My main abstract axioms for God are "unameable" and "transcendent",
i.e. not justifiable, not provable, ... This becomes theorems in the
machine's theology with the definition above: machines cannot prove
the existence of a reality verifying their belief (because that would
give them a way to prove their consistency, which they can't by
incompleteness).
The term God designates what we ignore, including a part that we have
to ignore to be able to assign meaning on the relative realities.
John K Clark
--
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.
