On 22 Jan 2017, at 02:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> In Plato-like theology [blah blah blah]
Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study.
That attitude is the one that the radicals and the fundamentalist
appreciate the most.
Let us forbid reason in the field so that we keep the power of the
credules that we can manipulate with terror and wishful thinking.
> It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the
theological assumption of the Materialist.
Theology has no field of study.
> you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.
I have no idea what "God-Matter" means,
I have defined God by the Origin/Cause/Reason of all things (matter
appearances, histories, consciousness, ...).
When Matter is assumed to be the Origin/Cause/Reason of all things,
it plays the role of God, in the monist materialist metaphysics.
I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how
matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations,
Yes, that is the easy part because Matter (the object of physics) has
many varied Turing Universal Part, in both theory and empirically.
The problem for the materialist is not in the generation of
consciousness, but in its statistical stability, due to the hugeness
of the machine's first person indterminacy on all computations going
through their states in arithmetic (or any grand enough physical
reality, as examplified by the notion of Boltzman brains)
I need only observe that is can.
No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal. In all
case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that
task. Again, showing that something is Turing universal shows only
that it can sustain a computation, not that it can select a
computation from the first person point of view of a subject. It just
cannot work, or you rely on some non Turing emulable magic.
But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing
without the help of physics.
This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain
this in all details in a self-contained way, but 99,9 % of it can be
found in good textbook, and all you need to understand is the original
definition of computable function, and the representation of
computable function and computation by Church, Turing.
And please don't don't tell me about some textbook
If you were willing to play the role of the fair candid, I could
explain you. But you seem decided to not change your mind, and we all
known you very great expertise in the art of dismissing what you want
not understand.
unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found
as book that can calculate 2+2
Like here, as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers
do that, in arithmetic, or in a physical reality if that exists.
I have no clue if you are just joking ... I hope you are ... But I
know that if I explain how numbers compute relatively to each others
in arithmetic, you will come back with such jokes making hard to see
if you misunderstanding is genuine or not.
or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the
laws of physics.
>> You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can
say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything
about the nature of reality or about horses. The only reason you'd
make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5
legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have
is you enjoy saying "I believe in God".
> Yes.
Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,
It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is
invisible in most theologies, OK. "amoral"? open problem. "Mindless?"
Perhaps? With computationalism, the role of God is played by the
concept of arithmetical truth (a highly non computable concept), and
it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all
arithmetical sentence, but no need to take this as more than a simple
metaphor.
"
and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is
absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now
there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage
that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion,
and the other for an omnipotent omniscient conscious being who
created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for
the old meanings of the words "leg" and "God"?
All dictionnaries contains the general philosophical notion of God.
The term is useful for those who doubt Materialism. You can define God
negatively by saying that it is what explain the conscious appearances
of matter when you stop believing that matter is a good explanation
for those appearances.
> That's what we do in science Using God in the sense of
whatever is needed to have a reality,
So you're saying the sense of the meaning of the word "God" should
be changed to whatever it takes so that someone can say "I believe
in God"
In science, even in the science about God, we avoid ontological
commitment, so no one will say "I believe in God". That is implicit in
Platonist like theology, but at the start we need to be neutral. We
just study the conequence of computationalism, and the only "act of
faith" which might needed to be done is in the case you actually say
"yes" to the doctor. But that is not needed, as we reason in the
hypotetico-deductive way.
Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One instead.
without sounding like an idiot. that is just what I'd expect from
somebody who likes the way "I believe God exists" sounds but don't
care what the words represent. And no, that's not what we do in
science.
But you are the one insistaing that we use God in a sense which is so
ridiculous. You are the one who want "I believe in God" be ridiculous.
The statement "there is no God" is still a statement in theology. You
say that theology has no field, but you mock a theory since a long
time by defending a theology shown incompatible with our best theories
of mind.
> It is your theology, apparently.
The field of theology is just like the study of zoology, except that
it's not about animals and its not a study.
You illustrate again and again that people who mock theology are
exactly those who defend their own theology, so much that they take
their God for granted. That is the usual fundamentailist move. You
evacuate all possible doubt we could have on your theology, where God-
Matter is the one justifying the appearances. No problem, but I have
proven that is is not sustainable when we assume, as you do, Digital
Mechanism.
> The computationalist answer is that such God does not exist,
No not at all, computationalists firmly think that
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blobs exist, and I am resolute in
my belief that "God" is Real, unless declared an
Integer.
> You will understand that not only physics and mathematics
comes from Greek theology,
I respect Greek mathematics but Greek physics was a joke, a very
bad joke that was held as dogma and kept physics from advancing
for nearly two thousand years. And NOTHING comes from Greek
theology or anybody else's theology either for that matter.
I discovered recently why even modern mathematical logic came from
theological questioning based on the idea that Plato might be the one
less wrong. I gave the reference (Daniel J. Cohen).
And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and physics
came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.
> and to rigor in theology.
Rigor? You must be kidding, there is more substance to the study
of a toy balloon after its skin has been removed than the study of
God.
Rigor can be kept in all domain, except if you forbid or mock or
discourage its study. You say theology is stupid, but you mock all
attempts to be serious with it, notably by defending the very
contingent use of God in societies where powers stolen the scientific
tools, a bit like the domain of Health. You could as well mock
medicine, given that it makes people believe in crap like "dangerous
drug". But it is not medicine which is not serious, it is human during
some period of time for contingent greedy banditism. It is exactly the
same with theology, except the period of oppression last since a much
longer time.
Bruno
Theologians produce a lot of hot air but unlike good
thermodynamicists they do not examine those aforesaid
gasses.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
