On 31 Mar 2017, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> I meant what i say since the beginning: by definition God is
the roots of everything.
You've also said "Definition: God is Reality". So everything
is "God",
Usually we have the contrary. take for Reality, with a big "R", the
set of all natural numbers. That set is not a number. Or take a model
of the set-theory ZF, the collection of all sets is not a set, as we
would have a problem with Cantor Power set theorem.
So, if God is Reality, it makes sense to not put God Itself *in* the
reality. That is common in most set theories and the neoplatonist
theologies. Plotinus defines the beings by what emanate from the ONE,
but the ONE itself is not a being. It makes no sense, in that theory,
to say that the ONE emanates from Itself.
which is equivalent to saying nothing is "God",
Yes, it is typical of the so-called negative theology: they all can
say that this is not God, that is not God. nothing we can conceive on
the "terrestrial" plane is God. God is the higher level One
responsible for what exists.
and so according to information theory the ASCII sequence G-O-D
now contains exactly ZERO bits of information.
That does not follow. You confuse belongness and inclusion.
And I'm sure of that number, I've counted them twice.
> And, as you say yourself, it is not a position, but a
defifinition.
Yes, but now that you've redefined a word so it contains no new
information and is thus utterly useless there is a hole in the
language, we're missing a word. We need a new way to convey the
concept of a omnipotent omniscient conscious person who created the
universe, the job the word "God" once had before you redefined it
out of existence. I humbly suggest "Cosmic Reality Actualized
Person", you love acronyms so we could call it "CRAP" for short.
the Aristotelian solution [...]
Screw Aristotle.
>The greeks [...]
Screw the greeks.
> for some reason they came back to the Aristotelian meaning
[...]
Screw Aristotle and screw his meaning
> is a trick to make us forget that the greeks [...]
Screw the greeks.
> All the debate on the existence of God
You are the one defending Aristotle theology, which is mainly the
belief in primary matter, or in physicalism.
But you confess here that you have never taken the time to read them,
or to read some good book on them, so it is hard to guess what you
want screw there.
The debate is over! With your new redefinition we can now shout
from the rooftops "THERE IS A GOD"
The kind of theologies I am studying, and which are very close to what
any machines believing in classical arithmetic, obeys a sort of
"incompleteness" theorem:
If God exist, then it is impossible to prove that God exist.
In that respect, God is already approximated by self-consistency
(<>t), as incompleteness is: <>t -> ~[]<>t (exercice: show that G
proves <>t -> ~[]<>t)
From this, and completeness, you can derive that if a self-
referentially correct machine believes in some Reality (Model in the
logician's sense) making true its beliefs, then it cannot justify
rationally, or prove, the existence of such reality.
and we can do so with absolute confidence that what we are shouting
is true.
The exact contrary occur. I think your saying here relies on the
confusion between belongness and inclusion above.
So with that new confidence what do we know about the nature of
reality and the universe that we didn't know before?
Correcting what you say above, and taking into account logic, we learn
that we cannot justify rationnally the existence of God, be it a
Physical universe (which has already be shown incompatible with
Mechanism), or a model of ZF, or even (with computationalism) the
arithmetical reality (the so-called standrd model of natural numbers
with adition and multiplication).
Absolutely positively nothing.
> See the post or my publications.
Why? Did you say something new in one of them that I haven't
heard you say a thousand times before?
You stooped at step 3. The idea is: try to go a little bit beyond, or
buy the Mendelson and Boolos, and try to think a little bit more.
I've already heard quite enough about the ancient Greeks, and also
how believing in a God is a religion and not believing in a God is
also a religion.
Then you need to reread the most elementary parts, where I insist that
"not believing in God" is NOT a religion. It is "believing in no God"
which is a religion. Here you confuse
~[]p and []~p
Bruno
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.
