Hi Steven,

On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:10, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:

I make one thing I say here clear. When I say "rejection of
scripture," I really must say "rejection of the literal interpretation
of scripture."

Important nuance.



Many of these radical Unitarian's - if not all of them
at the time - still considered themselves "Christian."

When a universal machine, which believes in enough of elementary arithmetic, looks inward, (something we can define precisely using a method due to Gödel) it discovers many thing:

- the origin of third person Shannon like information. Indeed arithmetic multiply the computations, and a first person indeterminacy appears, similar to the quantum indeterminacy in Everett (non collapse) formulation of QM.

- the origin of the physical laws, which indeed have to emerge (if we assume computationalism) from the first person views that we can statistically associated to machine. (see the papers below).

All this divides into a communicable part and non communicable parts. The non communicable part divides itself into expressible part and non expressible part, and eventually this leads to a Platonic-Plotinian theological conception of reality. The ontology is given by *any* Turing universal system, and I have chosen elementary arithmetic. The laws of physics are independent of the choice of the basic ontology, as physics emerges from the statistical interference between all computations made by all universal system.

The proof is constructive, making computationalism testable, (computationalism together with a standard definition of knowledge (the modal logic S4, provided by Theaetetus' definition of knowledge when modeling rational belief by probability). An arithmetical quantum logic has been already retrieved from that machine's introspection.

It predicts also that the physical reality is not digital, that some observable have to be continuous, and that below our computationalist substitution level, classical information get quantum-like. We get the quantum indeterminacy, quantum non locality and quantum non cloning, but also trace of the linearity and symmetry of the a core physical "bottom".

It is hard to sum up all this here, but apparently, for Christmas, Elsevier has made my last paper freely available or readable online (apparently we can't still get the PDF):

http://elsarticle.com/18AF6PI


You can also find a paper providing a simple and direct lexicon between Plotinus's theology, and the logic of self-reference (and their intensional variant) on my front page of my URL:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

I wrote also recently a paper "La Machine Mystique" (the mystic machine), published in Logic & Analyse, 2012, n° 218.

The "social", human, problem of theology, is that the theological science has been abandoned to authoritarian (political) power in Occident in 523 after C. (closure of Plato Academy).

I define the theology of machine M, by the set of (Gödel numbers of) the true (in the standard model of arithmetic) sentences in which M (or its Gödel number) appears as parameter. This is enough to get a proposition decidable theology (the modal logic G* of Solovay).

Computationalism provides many ways in which arithmetical informations are interpreted, and some are theological. Such theology is fundamental, in the sense that if computationalism is correct, the laws of physics are deducible in that theology, making computationalism testable.

I think also that the debate between Atheism and Christianity is a fake debate, defending a statu quo in theology, and hiding the deeper opposition between the Platonist (and mystic) conception of reality with the naturalist/materialist Aristotelian conception. For a Platonist, atheism and christianism seems to be two close variants of Aristotle's theology.

Best,

Bruno




Steven


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us > wrote:
Thank you Anny. That is an interesting interpretation of my position.

As will be made clear in the book, for me a religion is simply a set
of ideas such that we cannot look upon the world without consideration
of them. In this sense, science is my religion.

I should make it clear that I am personally indifferent to the notion
of "God." But I understand its context, the motivation and origin for
its use. In my next lecture, however, I will speak about the view and
motivations of Benjamin Peirce, his son Charles, and the attempt by
them and other radical Unitarians to re-conceive the notion of God in
scientific terms.

But it should be clear that this attempt, led by Benjamin Peirce, from influences and peer encouragements that can be traced back to Descarte
through Malebranche and the Unitarian logical challenge to divided
conceptions (i.e. Trinity), and articulated in his book "Ideality in
the physical sciences" is rightly paralleled with the positivist and
existentialist movement in Europe during the nineteenth century.

In my view it is a direct parallel to the existentialist challenge to
historical conceptions of divinity. I describe Benjamin as a "cautious positivist" in that he argued for true positivism (that science may be
universally applied) but did not want science to lose touch with the
deeper cosmological issues and issues of "quality." (In this he, and
the others of his ilk in and around Harvard, were thwarted by
conservative social forces and subsequently Unitarianism lost its
way).

These same motivations led in Europe to a concern over the social
implications of the failure of past conceptions (in the rise of
science and rejection of scripture) and in the absence of an
alternative. A concern expressed in terms that "God is dead."

The social pragmatism of this Harvard centered group was to place our
concerns over the nature of our existence clearly into the domain of
science and to re-conceive of the notion of God in scientific terms. A
view articulated by Charles in his "Neglected Argument."  I've been
saying that it is a sort of atheism without the "a," but this is not
quite fair I think since atheism is most generally a form of
materialism. This move acknowledges the common ground in the inquiry
of science and theology on the deeper issues, i.e, the intimate human
inquiry into the nature of the world and our place in it.

Anyhow, this narrative has unfolded before me during the development
of my work and provides the historical context and precedence for it.
It is discussed in one chapter of the forthcoming book and I will
speak of it (working from this chapter) on January 15th when I lecture
at Stanford on the life and work of Charles Sanders Peirce. This
lecture will place Charles in this broader context. As you know, 2014
is the centenary of Charles' death.

For others, if you have not yet caught my lecture last month, you can
see it here: http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M  The transcript of the
lecture is available as a book review here:
https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409

Again, my thanks for your kind comments.

Best regards,
Steven


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Anny Ballardini
<anny.ballard...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Ericsson-Zenith,

I finally had some time to follow this interesting presentation of your book. And if I understand properly, which is also connected with some of your previous contributions on this list, the fact that you want to show
that light is static is an hermetic statement that God exists in an
ever-present presence. And as far as I can remember, you will be able to show mathematically your supposition. This draws back to your previous commitment as a religious member of our community. You also say that "new
ideas are not familiar," but as you know, new ideas are the bread of
artists, and this goes well along with what research is supposed to be. The only difference in-between artistic and scientific research is that the
latter requires an armamentarium of historical information (precise
quotations, previous theories) that artistic performance does not have. That
all belongs to the digestion of art criticism.
I am wondering in this moment about Leonardo. He simply skipped all previous history and created on his own in a gut-lived process that put himself in a competition with his own self. Those who play an instrument or paint,
perfectly know what I am talking about.
After this book, which I can see as a major contribution to the scientific community, maybe you will finally be able to get to pure research, your own.

What might be difficult here for people like me who do not have extended studies in mathematics or physics, are the extended drawbacks to these
specialized sciences.

Anyhow, congratulations, and let us know when the next lecture comes up.

[I have been absent from this list because of several commitments. The major one probably being the relapse of my 9 year old niece into leukemia. I am
shocked by the way she is being treated.]

Best wishes,
Anny



On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us >
wrote:

Please forgive my cross-posting.

The video of my Nov. 13th lecture is now available on YouTube,

http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M

it includes the first chapter of my forthcoming book. The full
transcript is now also available as a book preview here.

https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409

In a follow up lecture on January 15th I will speak about the life and work of Charles Sanders Peirce. In this lecture I will place Charles in the broader context of intellectual developments in and around the
formation of Harvard University.

Best regards,
Steven


-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirc...@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce- l.htm .








--
Dott.ssa Anny Ballardini, MFA, PhD.

http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
http://www.lulu.com/content/5806078
http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html

I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
star!
Friedrich Nietzsche

« Stulta est clementia, cum tot ubique
vatibus occurras, periturae parcere chartae »
Giovenale

Professionista di cui alla Legge n. 4 del 14 gennaio 2013, pubblicata nella
GU n. 22 del 26/01/2013

Freiberuflerin laut Gesetz Nr. 4 vom 14. Jänner 2013, veröffentlicht im
Amtsblatt Nr. 22 vom 26.1.2013

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis





_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to