Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

From: John M <>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 09:34:47 -0400

I am sorry to have asked that question.
I meant 'religion' as assigning those 'unanswered' questions to some
super-authority and 'believe' an answer assigned as if a higher
authority-wisdom would have provided them, whilst they came from (definitely
wise) humans of THAT age (i.e. level of epistemic readiness). Mostly with
mystical painting.
Then later on powers picked it up, formulated those ideas into formats
according to their goals (any, according to the 'times')
and waged brutal wars all the way to this day.
Instead of in a - as you said - modestly scientific manner admitting our
ignorance. Which does not interfere with trying to find solutions....
How about steering 'comp' in the direction of the 3rd millennium level of
ideas AD instead of BC times?

Sorry, I don't know those gentlemen you mention, but it seems they want to
explain the fundamentally unknown by parts (ideas) of the same fundamentally
unknown . Matter? Math-cal logic? Computer science? all embedded into the
age-old ways.
Even the last one, unless it 'forms' out itself from its rather embryonic
phase of the early development. (Digital that is).

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp

Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit :

> Are we reinventing the religion?


Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the
problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can
approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the
scientific attitude, and then deduce testable facts.

That scientific attitude has ALWAYS been in conflict, of course, with
all form of scientism or religionism or whatever based on authoritative
It is fair to say that Aristotelism has probably saved the observation
of nature from the influence of such authoritative arguments, but it
has saved only that, and I think it could perhaps be time to dare, at
least, reformulate unsolved old question. Comp gives an opportunity to
do that. It clearly provides the tools. As Rudy Rucker, Judson Webb,
Paul Benacerraf, and others have already shown, notably, is that
computer science and mathematical logic makes it possible to develop
theories putting light on those questions. About the nature of
"matter", Comp, then, appears to go more in the direction of Plato and
Plotinus than Aristotle. Is that even astonishing?


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sat Aug 05 2006 - 09:37:05 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST