I know John does not read genuinely enough the post, but I want to
thank him for the opportunity to add things, and notably how much the
atheists of the gnostic kind, despite declaring themselves non
religious, act exactly like the charlatan in religion.
On 11 Jan 2017, at 01:03, John Clark wrote:
> You confess base your thinking on what the majority says,
You're damn right, and I don't confess it I brag about it! When
it comes to the definition of words the majority rules.
The majority agrees with this naïve definition: God is the creator of
everything.
The greek theory was the same, yet seeing God as a first principle, a
reality to discuss about. Basically, what justifies the appearances
and what is possibly beyond, or the object of science: what we can
know and what is real but cannot know if that exists.
I think JC confuse "God" the concept, and one particular theory of God
(the common one today in occident, but note that here there are
already *many* different interpretation of it.
I use the word with the most general definition. Only people believing
that only one theory of god is correct can criticize those who propose
a different theory.
Just by your attitude toward the Platonist theory shows that you
accompany the clergy in the critics of any different theory than their
own.
God has been for a millenium a nickname of "the reason of it all",
that they were searching. It is the science of the thing from which
all other things or things' appearances are tried to be explained.
The theology of Aristotle was two gods, and basically in modern and
simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) physical equation +
initial conditions on some objects.
The theology of Plato was one god, and basically in modern and
simplifying terming, it was a (search for a) logical/mathematical
principle/theory of some subject. The laws of thought, mind, dream,
imaging, conceiving, etc.
Plato was open that Aristotle theology could be correct.
Aristotle thought (wrongly) that he refuted Plato.
Only a charlatan would pretend that science has decided between
Plato's and Aristotle's conception of Reality/God today.
What has been proved, though, is that if consciousness is invariant
for a recursive permutation ( a version of digital mechanism), then
the theology of Aristotle can't work, and Plato's one might still
work. Actually, a pythagorean versionn of Plato, extracted from the
machine's self-referencial discourse, do seem to work, as it predicts
both intuitively and formally the quantum appearances. It is
"shocking" but not more than Everett or the quantum facts.
To each digital machine, that is, number m, as we have fixed one
universal base (Robinson arithmetic). So we have an effectively
enumerable sequence of programs P_0, P_1, P_2, ... P_m, P_m+1, etc.
(use any other programming language if you are not at ease in Robinson
Arithmetic).
The machine/number having an interesting theology are the Löbian
machine/numbers, that is a machine/number which not only are universal
P_m (x,y>) = P_x(y), but they can prove that they are universal in the
sense that they can prove p -> []p for all p sigma_1 (which is
equivalent with being Turing universal). Löbian number knows that they
are (associated) to Löbian and universal numbers.
Then all concept on them can be represented by a set of numbers, and
meta-concepts by set of set of numbers. They have varied degree of
unsolvability.
Truth, p (the set of true numbers p on m) p limited to sigma_1
proposition (the leaves of the universal dovetailer)
provable, []p (the set of numbers provable by m on m)
knowable, []p & p (the set of numbers provable and true, by m on m)
Observable []p & ~[]~t (the set of numbers provable and consistent)
Sensible []p & ~[]~t & p (provable, consistent, p).
God knows that this is the exactly the same part of the arithmetical
reality, expressed in 5 different ways. But the machine/number m,
which plays the role of man in Plotinus, cannot know that, and both
the man and God knows this entails quite different logics associated
which each type of view.
The abstract rendering of the universal dovetailer argument entails
that the observable is given by ([]p & ~[]~t (& p)), p sigma_1, and
that gives a quantum logic (intuitionist quantum logic in the case []p
& ~[]~t & p.
We get the Gödel-Solovay surprise gift that we can distinguish what
God says from what the machine can justify, know, observe, etc. It is
the inheritance of the G* minus G difference on some other nuance. The
universal soul ([]p & p) does NOT split, and is lives somewhere at the
jonction of earth and heaven, using the traditional terminology.
The humans closer to the Löbian self-reference are Parmenides,
Moderatus of Gades, and Plotinus, perhaps Porphyry, Proclus ... (still
not quite sure).
The mechanist digital version extracted from self-reference (including
the UD reasoning) is refutable, just compare the logic of the machine
observable and the empirical logic of the observable (in Putnam sense).
You might need to read the bibles: George Boole (the laws of thought),
Davis dovers' book (the original paper of Gödel, Church, ...), and its
book on computability and unsolvability, Smullyan, Boolos, ... I
recall Smullyan's book "Forever Undecided", a very good introduction
to G.
You can also read the book by Daniel E. Cohen, "Computability and
Logic" (a chef d'oeuvre, but concise and tight, need pencils and papers)
You can also read the incredible book by Daniel J. Cohen (note the
"J"), "Equations from God" which illustrates the theological birth of
Mathematical Logic, and how and why this remains well hidden.
The humans!
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
