On 03 Apr 2017, at 17:42, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> If God existed He would have absolutely problem in
proving His existence even to someone like me.
> In which theory?
The guy who said there is no such thing as a stupid question was
wrong. God is omnipotent and you are confused as to why I should
think such a beings should be able to convince me He exists if He
really does!
I don't believe in such a God. I cannot make sense of omnipotence.
> Do you, or do you not believe in a primary physical universe.
Google doesn't know what "primary physical universe" means so
I'm not sure what you're asking. I can think of 3 possibilities.
1) Do I think a mind can derive the laws of logic from the laws of
physics?
Yes.
I guess you mean a person. OK. But this is trivial given that the
physical laws, or at least their formulation assume some logic.
2) Do I think a mind can derive all the laws of physics we see and
none of the laws of physics we don't see from nothing but the laws
of logic?
Maybe, but probably not.
No. This is impossible. The laws of physics entails the existence of
universal numbers, and it can be proved that with the laws of most
known logics, it is impossible to prove the existence of a universal
number. You need to assume at least numbers, combinators and some laws
on them.
3) Do I think a mind can be derived from nothing but the laws of
logic?
No.
OK.
So you tell me, do I "believe in a primary physical universe"?
Only if you believe that it is possible to explain all sciences from
the laws of physics. Do you believe that physics is or could be the
fundamental science?
> If not what is your theology?
Bruno, 10 years is long enough, you really need to find a new
zinger.
What is your ontological belief? What do you believe?
> You criticize Aristotle but...
Screw Aristotle.
> Why do you think Plato...
Screw Plato.
> You criticize the antic greeks, but...
Screw the ancient Greeks.
> You criticize Aristotle but confess to not having read him
Insult and mockery always comes from ignorance.
OK Bruno, you say you're a logician
?
so try to follow me.
1) Life is too short to read every book ever written.
2) The time spent reading one book is time not spent reading another
book.
3) Aristotle would flunk a fourth grade science test.
4) Aristotle would flunk a seventh grade math test.
5) Those who are interested in that sort of thing say that unlike
Plato Aristotle's use of language is nothing special.
6) Therefore Aristotle doesn't make the list of books I should read
before I die.
There is something else that doesn't make the list of things that
should be read, all the stuff in a mathematical proof after step 3
if a major blunder has been found there.
> you throw out the distinction between first person and third
person points of view, indeed. That has been shown in all details.
There is an interesting quotation from Hugh Everett, the man who
created the Many World's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
"When a observer splits it is meaningless to ask which of
the final observers corresponds to the initial one since each
possess the total memory of the first, it is as foolish as
asking which amoeba is the original after it splits into two".
Can you give the reference?
The context is needed, because if there is one guy who introduce the
difference between the 1p and 3p in physics, it is Everett. With the
word "subjective" and "objective" in place of 1p and 3p, note. I avoid
this because it leads to the expression "subjective probabilities"
which are objective and easily confused with the bayesian type of
subjective probabilities. Of course it is OK for Everett because he do
physics and does not focus on the mind-body problem.
> It really looks like you are working for the Pope.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
A french bishop said about a book by Onfray (a french strong atheist)
that his strong atheism was the best advertising for the Church ever
conceivable. You defend their theory. You mock only the fairy tales in
which no theologian ever believed (as opposed to the member of the
clergy, who also disbelieve it, but still fake the belief, probaby for
the children).
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.
