On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> >> If Hilbert had insisted on equating the concept of a glass of beer with >> the English word "point", as you insist on equating the concept of stuff >> with the English word "God", then one would be justified in suspecting >> Hilbert was trying to hide sloppy thinking with bafflegab. > > > > > Not at all. > Not at all? Not even a little? If Hilbert had absolutely insisted on renaming "a mathematical point" to "a glass of beer" I would suspect him of being a fuzzy thinker trying to hide something and no more trustworthy than a carnival huckster. You absolutely insist on changing the meaning of the English word "God " to mean "stuff", and so I have to ask myself, why would Bruno want to do that? > > > His point was that a valid reasoning is independent of the word used. > Bullshit! If symbols don't have meaning then they are not symbols and you'd be justified in saying all Hilbert (or Shakespeare) did in his life was write squiggles on paper. > > I suggest you study the book by Mendelson. It is very good. > Good? How do you tell the difference between good squiggles and bad squiggles? > > >>> >> >>> You can approach *any* domain with the scientific method or attitude. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes but theology has no domain. > > > > Theology has the gods as domain. > Yes as I said, theology has no domain. > > > The statement that there are no god is a statement in the filed of > theology, and I guess it is your theology > No my domain of study is all the integers greater than 2 but less than 3; I don't wish to brag but I am a great expert on those integers, I know all there is to know about them. > > > assuming that a god needs to be a person. > Of course God needs to be a person because that's what the English word "God" means! God doesn't mean the multiplication table and God doesn't mean a cloud of Hydrogen gas and God doesn't mean "stuff". > > > "Zero gods" is a strong theological statement. > So everything is theological. Meaning needs contrast, "everything is theological" is equivalent to "nothing is theological" in that neither statement conveys any information. > > Your own decision to freeze your brain belong to applied theotechnology, > which is part of some theology. > As I say, if everything is theology then nothing is theology. I have a feeling you must like Trump because words don't have any meaning for him either, he just makes noises with his mouth. > > All self-referentially correct universal machine which believe in enough > induction axioms (Gödel-Löbian machines) has a theology, > And so my dear friends we are here to mourn the death of 2 fine words that once meant something but no longer do, " theology " has joined "God" in becoming just squiggles that have no meaning. > > > you can already read my paper on Plotinus > Do any of the squiggles on that paper have a meaning? 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.
