On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2013 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent,
I hope you don't mind I re-answer this.
On 28 Nov 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
I can conceive of (with apologies to H. L. Mencken), Agdistis or
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu, An,
Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu,
Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal,
Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia
Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Brent, Brigit, Camaxtli, Ceres,
Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Chemosh,
Cheng-huang, Clapton, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin,
Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil,
Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Fortuna,
Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb,
Geong Si, Guanyin, Hades, Hanuman, Hathor, Hecate (Hekate),
Helios, Heng-o (Chang-o), Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Hod,
Hoderi, Hoori, Horus, Hotei, Huitzilopochtli, Hsi-Wang-Mu,
Hygeia, Inanna, Inti, Iris, Ishtar, Isis, Ixtab, Izanaki,
Izanami, Jesus, Juno, Jehovah, Jupiter, Juturna, Kagutsuchi,
Kartikeya, Khepri, Ki, Kingu, Kinich Ahau, Kishar, Krishna, Kuan-
yin, Kukulcan, Kvasir, Lakshmi, Leto, Liza, Loki, Lugh, Luna,
Magna Mater, Maia, Marduk, Mars, Mazu, Medb, Mercury, Mimir,
Min, Minerva, Mithras, Morrigan, Mot, Mummu, Muses, Nammu,
Nanna, Nanna (Norse), Nanse, Neith, Nemesis, Nephthys, Neptune,
Nergal, Ninazu, Ninhurzag, Nintu, Ninurta, Njord, Nugua, Nut,
Odin, Ohkuninushi, Ohyamatsumi, Orgelmir, Osiris, Ostara, Pan,
Parvati, Phaethon, Phoebe, Phoebus Apollo, Pilumnus, Poseidon,
Quetzalcoatl, Rama, Re, RheaSabazius, Sarasvati, Selene, Shiva,
Seshat, Seti (Set), Shamash, Shapsu, Shen Yi, Shiva, Shu, Si-
Wang-Mu, Sin, Sirona, Sol, Surya, Susanoh, Tawaret, Tefnut,
Tezcatlipoca, Thanatos, Thor, Thoth, Tiamat, Tianhou, Tlaloc,
Tonatiuh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Tyche, Tyr, Utu, Uzume, Vediovis,
Venus, Vesta, Vishnu, Volturnus, Vulcan, Xipe, Xi Wang-mu,
Xochipilli, Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yarikh, YHWH, Ymir, Yu-huang, Yum
Kimil and Zeus. But I see no reason to believe any of them exist.
So the question is: do you see a reason to disbelieve all of them?
I didn't say I "disbelieved", I said I saw no reason to believe in
them.
But that is agnosticism. Not atheism. We might have only a
vocabulary problem. All the atheists I know are typically NOT
agnostic.
I *fail* to believe in them. I think of "belief" as admitting
degrees. I disbelieve in them FAPP, i.e. if I have to act I will
act as if they didn't exist. But I cited the list to contradict
your idea that conceiving of gods makes it harder to disbelieve in
God.
I have never develop that idea (did I made a typo?). I am saying
the exact contrary. It is NOT conceiving a God, which makes harder
to disbelief in it.
I think it is the other way around; it's harder to disbelieve in
something undefined.
That's my exact point, and that is the reason why science should be
agnostic before having more light on the mind-body problem and on
the origin of the physical universe.
Which makes me wonder how you can be so dogmatic that fundamental
matter does not exist?
I am not dogmatic. All I do is providing an argumlent that IF comp
is correct, then Aristotelian primitive matter becomes a phlogiston-
of-the-gap. I show that such a notion of matter fails to explain
the very knowledge that we can have of matter (and mind). I am only
reducing the mind-body problem, or the "hard problem of
consciousness" to the problem of justifying the belief in physics
from the belief in arithmetic (or Turing-equivalent).
What if the list just missed the one that exists?
As far as I know, honestly, it seems to me that only Ganesh, or
Ganesha, is incompatible with comp.
I really love Ganesh, though, perhaps for that very reason. When
kid, Ganesh made his father angry and the angry father cut
Ganesh's head, and threw it away. Her mother was *very* angry,
and ordered the father do find a new head quickly, and the
father, in the hurry, cut the head of of the first elephant
passing by, and that is why Ganesh has an elephant head (which
reminds me of the cuttlefish which I love even more).
I guess you see the problem with comp. It is a version of the
brain-exchanged thought experience. But is it really
contradictory with comp? That's needs the thought experiences
with (degrees of) amnesia, and addressing the question who are we
and how many person really exist.
But how could I argue about Ohyamatsumi or RheaSabazius, Tlaloc?
I would need to study their stories to conclude.
Also, it looks that list misses the divinities that you can met
by smoking some herb, like the four kanobo Gods, and
Daunarani, ... with tobacco, or simply Maria, you know, the
Mother of God, that you can meet with Salvia (according to the
Christian Mazatecs).
There is no algorithm capable of deciding of two machines
computes or not the same function, so you can imagine the
difficulties with the nameable non machines, or gods and goddesses.
And the big one, cannot be in such a list, I guess.
We might try to decide on a definition of "atheism", as that
notion is very unclear, and I have rarely obtain a definition
on which atheists agreed.
It's as clear as the negation of 'theist'.
But "theist" is not clear.
My point exactly.
But if you agree that "theist" is not clear, you agree that
"atheist" is not clear either.
But "theist" is only unclear because you suppose that you can cite
some ancient philosopher as *really* defining "theism". I accept
the modern theory of dictionaries that meanings are defined by
usage; and the usage of "God" is a superperson who created the
world, wants to be worshipped, and judges, rewards and punishes.
The "modern" definition is done in a obscurantist period where
science and theology have been artificially separated by people for
reason of power.
Because theology taught that knowledge came from revelation an was
to be believe by an act of faith. Science separated from that and
eventually gained some power through being useful. There's nothing
obscurantist about keeping those two epistemologies distinct.
Of course there is. If theology was science, revelation would have
treated as first person incommunicable experience, and it theology
would have progressed. By separating theology and science, the
scientist are accomplices of those who maintian fake theologies by
authoritative argument.
This is a vicious circle, as it prevent theology to evolved, and this
is used by the atheists to let the theology staying in the camp of
those who use propaganda, force, fear technic, etc.
I take the definition of those who invented science, and which
included all from of fundamental reflexions, including the
reflexion on the origin of "reality".
Then you need to write in Greek,
?
because since Gödel we have discovered that arithmetical truth
transcend all machines. before we were thinking that eventually we
might identify provable and true, but today, as the greek intuited,
we know that truth (even in the apparently limited domain of the
numbers) escape *all* theories and all *machine*. So with comp, the
simple "truth" get a necessarily transcendental character, and this
explain that Plato was right on this: truth is a transcendental
(theological) notion.
Have you lost sight of the fact that what Godel proved was that
arithmetic can express the proposition, "This sentence cannot be
proven within arithmetic."? Hardly a transcendental truth.
It is true but not provable in arithmetic. It can be proved, in
arithmetic, that is is equivalent with self-consistency, and that is
equivalent with the existence of a model or of a reality, or of truth.
It is transcendental. The arithmetic machine can get experience making
her willing to have faith and believe she cannot prove that sentence,
but she cannot prove that either, and it is the beginning of the
discovery, by the machine, that she is confronted with something non
nameable which transcend her.
I cannot meta-identify truth and God, because those notion are a
priori different. It just happens that IF we assume comp, THEN
truth behaves like Plato's notion of God.
Only the day the vast majority practice or believe in comp, we
might use "truth" in the place of God. Before that it would be
dishonest. Likewise, if comp is refuted, and some solid argument is
given that the material reality is fundamental, we can use
"physical universe" instead of "God", but doing that before would
again be preposterous.
You seem to have assumed the task is to find something label with
the word "God". I say let us be modest and use words for what we
know.
Let us be genuinely modest. We know about nothing, and all we can do
is agreeing on some axioms. Be it point, line, and god, reality, etc.
Thats why Gödel provided a proof of the existence of God. By
formalising St-Anselm definition of God, he illustrates the idea that
we can be serious (modest, scientific) when doing theology.
Is the God of Gödel coherent with comp? This would mean we can do the
Gödel proof in S4Grz, and I doubt this, so we can search now if the
machine believes in a slightly different notion than St-Anselm/Gödel.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
