> On 6 Oct 2019, at 15:27, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:39:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:47, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote: >> Interesting! >> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide: >> >> I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's >> conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said >> such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. >> >> Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost anything. >> That is how these things work and why they persist. This only talks about >> lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing thunderbolts. >> It say nothing of real significance. > > > There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure randomness, > and even more from any text, when they are motivated to see them there. > > Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when asking > them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say “yes”, > showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading. > > Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from all > myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by personal > feeling or experience. > > Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor > collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined (provably > so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about it. > > Bruno > > > > The brain is a sort of puzzle solving system. We have a compulsion to make > sense out of things. We see this with gambling, where people will persist in > playing games that have odds weighed in favor of the house. People will drain > away their entire savings by running to a casino. Religion is something > similar, where believers will spend a lifetime working to make some > consistent sense out of a jumble of mythic narratives.
Only because religion/theology has been taken out of science by those who want to do easy money with it, as religion is related to the fear of death, which is is the easiest to exploit to make money in a fraudulent way. If you read the serious theologian, or some who can be both serious and non serious (yes some do both, like Pythagorus), and study the line from the pre-platonciens (Pythagorus, Parmenides for example) to the official last one, Damascius, you will see believers depending their lifetime to make sense of the observation versus a possible mathematical reality, only/ There is no mythic narratives others than the idea that there is some reality to explore and try to understand. Religion got its bad reputation, because when a new serious theologian appears, it has been burned at the stake in a way or another, by people opposing to them the dogma. With mechanism, we get that there is no creator, nor creation, which is a problem for all materialist believer, who still want that the brain is a sort of machine. Mechanism has been the main tools by the materialists to mock the theist or the idealist, or the immaterialist, so it is normal they have some difficulties to accept the conclusion that mechanism and materialism finds themselves at the antipodes of the conception of reality. Some people imagine that the platonicians adds something to Aristotle’s Universe, and some indeed do that. But there is a line of platoncians who are just skeptical about the Universe, and believe that the explanation is simpler than we thought, which makes harder for them to explain what we observe, but somehow, the progress in mathematics illustrate what they search, and the discovery of the universal machine allows us now to make such type of theories more precise and testable. And quantum mechanics provides enormous evidence for mechanism, provides a simple theory of everything, like the theory below, and the theory explains why personal realities develop and get divided into sharable and non sharable realities. It notably distinguish clearly the qualia from the quanta, and explain their relations, And the quanta part is testable, and indeed gives something promising to extend Quantum mechanics in some way. The fake religion are only the one who claim to know the ontology, and refuse to test them. Some are simply materialist and asserts that the physical material reality explains everything, some add a designer, but if they claim they know; it is sort of fraud (not always conscious). The serious people are just searching the solution, and propose refutable theories, and that is the scientific attitude, which can be held in *all* domains, be it gardening, or theology (in the original greek sense, where it is the theory searching for the more economical explanation of most of what os observable or not observable (like 1+2=3, or KKK=K, that you should be able to derive from the theory below). My favorite presentation of the universal dovetailer, or theory of everything, (needing mathematical logic at the metalevel) is the fry elementary theory of combinators. Contrary to Robinson arithmetic, it does not requires logic, so it is given here in extenso. There are three inference rules: 1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C 2) If A = B then AC = BC 3) If A = B then CA = CB And there are two axioms: 4) KAB = A 5) SABC = AC(BC) Well sometimes people add S ≠ K, to avoid the “trivial” combinatory algebra which contains only one “bird” (as Smullyan called the combinators), the identity bird I (such that Ix = x). Indeed it is easy to show that III = I, and that IIII = II(II). See the combinators thread where I have proven with all details that this theory is Turing universal. It is far easier and less cumbersome than showing that Robinson arithmetic is Turing complete. But of course those are equivalent theories, and you might understand that theology and physics are independent of which Turing)-complete system we start with. --- Mechanism might be false, but asserting that metaphysics is not a testable science is usually done by those who take physics as metaphysics, which is the Aristotelian metaphysics, and to say that science has decided between Plato and Aristotle, is jut a fraud. Now, I provided a test, and retrospectively QM assess Mechanism, and shows the violation of all conception of matter proposed since Democritus. If the physics in the head of the universal machine/numbers contradicts nature systemtiacallu-ly, then we would at last have indirect evidence for primary matter, but that has not yet happened. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06107aa2-a8c5-4f36-9609-d4e848b77c65%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06107aa2-a8c5-4f36-9609-d4e848b77c65%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/816837AB-FA34-424C-85F0-0EF9AFEF87A2%40ulb.ac.be.
