On 08 Apr 2017, at 18:13, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> When 99% of the human species observe the ASCII
sequence G-O-D they have a clear mental picture of what that
sequence represents,
> False! the muslims are required to not have any mental image
of the Unnameable.
False! There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, of them 600
million can read, and for every single one of them a mental idea
forms when they see the squiggle "God", otherwise they wouldn't be
able to read, and not one of those mental ideas is of the
multiplication table.
Here my dear John, you confuse the Unnameable with a sequence of
letter. The Muslims have no problem with letters and name, only
picture of It. Note that the muslims who say that a caricature of the
prophet is a blasphem, do blasphem. Because they create an
intermediate between them and It.
And yet you claim to be mystified why you are misunderstood!
Why I am misunderstood by *you*?
Don't overgeneralize.
It is not so easy to get both the mathematical logic/recursion theory,
and the quantum physics, and then the subject concerns a problem which
is basically a taboo, sadly enough also for (strong) atheists, since
1500 years of brainwashing.
Thanks God, it is not a taboo for serious scientists and serious
philosophers which are publicly agnostic.
Take all your time John, every one understand some bigger part of it
from time to time soon or later.
And if you get the point you will see I am just asking a question, and
showing how to explore the answer(s). I have zero pretension to any
truth, or any certainty, which is the point of science.
If you decide to not understand, that's OK. It is still a mystery why
you stop the reasoning at step 3. It looks easy, like a way to avoid
the more subtle points which follows. But here you are mistaken too.
The translation of arithmetic eventually discharged the needs for the
thought experience. In the original long thesis, I used "paradox"
instead of argument, and I used them to motivate the intensional []p &
<>p.
I was asked to use "argument" instead of "paradox", and I was OK,
because it is an argument too, but in that domain, some people fears
argumentation; so I prefer paradox, and then translate the problem in
arithmetic.
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.
