Tom,
It seems you are doing to the arithmetical hypostases what Augustin did
to Plotinus's hypostases, including a relation between the three
primary hypostases and trinity (criticized by many scholars, note).
Roughly speaking, I can agree, except that I cannot put any singular
name in a theoretical frame (except for reference on previous work).
I must go, and I will elaborate this later.
Bruno
Le 05-janv.-07, à 10:01, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the
>> mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation
>> why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I
>> must agree this explanation is more coherent with
>> "theories/philosophies" in which that "God" is so much *personal* that
>> it looks like the "first person" canonically associated to the
>> machine.
>> In that case your "personal God" would be the "machine third
>> hypostase"
>> or "Plotinus universal soul". It is the unameable self (re)defined by
>> Bp & p.
>>
>
> If we are limiting ourselves to some finite machine or person, say
> myself, and thus the third hypostase is simply my first person
> experience, that is not the same as my personal God.
>
> However, if we are talking about the "largest" person possible, then
> the third hypostase (Bp & p) is based on the first hypostase (p) where
> p is ALL TRUTH. Then if we take the first hypostase to be the
> impersonal Arithmetic Truth, or any impersonal truth, then the third
> hypostase based on that (Bp & p) seems to be akin to the World Soul of
> pantheism mentioned my Smullyan in "Who Knows?" p. 20. I presume this
> is akin to the universal soul that is sometimes referred to in MWI
> discussions about all of us belonging ultimately to the same person,
> since we all eventually have every experience.
>
> However, this is not the same as the personal God's Soul, or what I
> mapped to the Holy Spirit. The third hypostase I referred to in my
> Christian interpretation of the hypostases was based on the first
> hypostase corresponding to God the Father, or "I am that I am", or
> "Yahweh". (more on naming below) This is the personal God, not an
> impersonal god. Without a personal God at the top (by definition!)
> there is no impetus for downward emanation. Numbers don't care about
> us and our plight with evil! With only numbers or other impersonal
> things, we are forever stuck with evil.
>
>> > If someone
>> > wants to research the historical record sufficiently to convince
>> > themselves one way or another about the Bible or Jesus'
>> resurrection,
>> > that's great, and I can give them some sources, but it's probably
>> too
>> > contingent for this List.
>>
>> Perhaps. The problem is that I just cannot take an expression like
>> "Jesus is the Son of God" as a scientific proposition. It could be
>> true, it could be false without me seeing a way to resolve it. On the
>> contrary, I can find in the talk by Jesus general pattern which makes
>> sense, and, indeed, 2/3 of Christian theology is probably compatible
>> with the comp hyp. Somehow, any literal interpretation of *any* text
>> (even PA's axioms !) should be considered with systematic suspicion.
>>
>
> Notice that I used the word "convince themselves" rather than "proof".
> (I used proof later on, but that was a mistake when talking with you,
> because I wasn't using it in the sense of a mathematical logic proof,
> like an inference from axioms.) The reality of the personal God in His
> three Persons fulfilling the first four hypostases is obviously greater
> than any truth that is accessible within the realm of mathematical
> provability (G) of finite persons or machines. You can see that
> through your statement that goodness is based on truth, so in a sense
> the personal God is even "bigger" than all Arithmetical Truth. This
> makes sense also from my statement that you need more than truth at the
> core, but also love and communication. So trying to "prove" God in
> some logical inference sense would not only be "harder" than trying to
> prove all Arithmetical Truth, it's even a category error since that
> wouldn't address love and communication. Trying to "prove" God in this
> step-by-step way is actually equivalent to trying to become God. Not
> only will we be forever short of seeing God, but we will be missing the
> love and communication aspect. So in a sense, putting our hope in just
> numerical truth is like hoping in only one dimension when more are
> required.
>
> The word "convince" is meant to convey something akin to convincing
> ourselves of the truth of Church's Thesis. It is like a machine at
> level G convincing itself of truth at the G* level. It is like the
> "circumstantial evidence" that Smullyan refers to (p. 5). The great
> thing is this: Say p=(all that the personal God is). Then Bp is the
> Logos, which has both the divine level, say G*(Logos), and the human
> level, say G(Logos), so that G(Logos) is the Word that "became flesh
> and dwelt among us", the Son of God. Now let G(Tom) = all of the truth
> that I can prove. Now of course this is not as "big" as G(Logos), and
> probably (I'm sure!) isn't even as "big" as G(Bruno). However, you can
> help me to discover areas of G(Tom) that I'm not aware of. In fact,
> the G(Tom(half asleep)) or the G(Tom(before Bruno helped me)) may not
> be as big as the G(Tom(awake)) or G(Tom(after Bruno helped me)). So
> G(Tom(awake)) contains some of G*(Tom(half asleep)) minus G(Tom(half
> asleep)). (Actually, sometimes it's the inverse where I realize
> something when I'm half asleep, and then when I wake up I have to
> figure out what I realized :) In other words, the fact that the
> personal God took on a form G(Logos) made it possible for us to
> "behold" him and expand our consciousness upward toward Someone who is
> more than just numbers. And it's more than just being able to expand
> our consciousness, there's the solution to evil too, the solution to
> the separation between us and who we really are meant to be.
>
>>
>> > But I do have response to your comment on
>> > universal-ness below.
>> > <snip>
>> > I agree I was too loose in my use of hypercomputation as an analogy.
>> > Actually the direction of the "spanning" was downward, going from G*
>> > (celestial) to G terrestial, described by the Greek work kenosis
>> > (emptying). This does not mean that God the Father (the personal
>> > fulfillment of the first hypostase), or the Holy Spirit (...second
>> > hypostase) discontinued to exist, but that the Logos became flesh
>> and
>> > dwelt among us, so that we could see his grace and truth. Again,
>> this
>> > does not mean that we cannot believe and seek truth, and have a
>> feeling
>> > that we are on the right track, without a relationship with the
>> > personal God. This means that the ultimate source of all truth made
>> > himself known to us on a human level and solved the problem of evil.
>>
>> Again this can have some symbolic sense. Literaly it is enough I know
>> just one suffering Dog to feel uneasy with the idea that the concrete
>> (not the theological) problem of evil is solved.
>>
>
> So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
> solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
> and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of
> the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought into
> relationship with Him again. This is the core to the solution of evil.
> Now this does not automatically imply that evil is immediately solved
> down in the 5th through 8th hypostases, i.e. the concrete problem of
> evil. But the solution to evil must first start at the level of our
> human persons.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Death itself is the ultimate effect of evil: separation/isolation
>> from
>> > everything and everyone. Jesus proved his divinity by raising
>> > *himself* from the dead.
>>
>> A very big advance in modern and serious parapsychology is that humans
>> are easily fooled by humans. How could you say Jesus has proved
>> something? Even if someone appear and can change water in wine and
>> makes miracles etc. I would not take this as a proof. Remember I even
>> think there is just no proofs concerning any reality. Proofs belongs
>> to
>> theories. Facts does not prove. Facts confirms or refute beliefs
>> (theories).
>>
>
> See above. I know that it's in the category of "circumstancial
> evidence", or a "sign" as the Bible calls it. It makes sense to me
> that the personal God would choose a sign that addressed the ultimate
> effect of evil: death. A mathematical proof just doesn't hack it.
>
>>
>> > I am not saying that God's communication is an exhaustive
>> communication
>> > of all truth, i.e. all facts (scientific, historic, etc.) that it is
>> > possible for us to know. It was a message saying, "I am here. I
>> love
>> > you. I am your source of meaning. Here is my hand to rescue you from
>> > darkness/meaninglessness and death/isolation. Your
>> > meaning/relationships are actually, ultimately, based on something:
>> > Me."
>>
>> But how could I know if jesus was not refering to the universal "me",
>> in which case I can make sense of what he said both relatively to
>> Plato
>> or Plotinus theory and with the comp hyp. If Jesus meant literally
>> himself, then, well I wait someone can even address a theory in which
>> such literal truth can make sense.
>>
>
> I'm still working on this. Hopefully the other paragraphs in this post
> will help a little. Reading Romans 8 might help.
>
>>
>> It is a cute story, but how could we be *sure* it was not a collective
>> hallucination? I recall that I take already the appearance of a
>> physical universe as a sort of collective (all machine) hallucination.
>> I am not saying that Jesus' resurrection was such an hallucination,
>> but
>> are you willing to be scientific on this, meaning are you prepared to
>> doubt any axiom of your theory?
>>
>
> While I am still in this finite body I will doubt. Being told truth
> doesn't mean that we don't doubt.
>
>>
>> >
>> > In a similar manner as "I don't know about other planets", I would
>> say
>> > I ultimately don't know about other people (first person pov and all
>> > that), what it means for them to believe in the personal God's love
>> for
>> > them. All I know is the way I've heard it (Jesus being the personal
>> > God's hand to us). To try to worry and orchestrate how all of that
>> > works for everyone would be going way above my competence. But this
>> > doesn't negate the truth of the personal God.
>>
>> To be clear, with comp there is a personal God, which is the
>> unnameable
>> self all enough correct machine have in themselves.
>>
>
> Isn't this just Bp & p? This is not All Arithmetic Truth, and even more
> it is not the personal God which is bigger than that.
> However, when we believe in Jesus [i.e. the G*(Logos) made flesh into
> G(Logos), or all Bp where p = (all that the personal God is)], then Bp
> & p, i.e. God's Spirit, "Himself bears witness with our spirit that we
> are children of God" (Romans 8:16). This is the same Spirit that fills
> in the gaps when we pray (Romans 8:26-27) and the same Spirit that will
> fill the gap when our bodies die, and give us life (Romans 8:11).
>
>>
>> > To the last question, yes. However, I think that Godel's
>> > axiomatization also applies to an impersonal god. The axioms for a
>> > personal God would have to include all three persons as I outlined
>> with
>> > the four hypostases. This is for reasons similar to the reasoning
>> of
>> > the hypostases, with the added axiom that the ultimate One is
>> personal
>> > and that the three persons somehow communicate and love one another.
>> > This is the basis on which there can be communication and love among
>> > other persons. In a way, communication and love are on a par with
>> > truth on the ontological scale. This is an important point.
>>
>> I agree, but it is even because I agree that I am afraid your
>> interpretation of Jesus and "witness" interpretation sound too literal
>> and could help those who want to abandon the theological baby with the
>> criminogenic human pseudo religious behavior.
>> Influence by comp I would add that the "personal God" is so much
>> personal that the enlightened person will never mention It. Personal
>> God are personal. Of course we can talk about such "personal things"
>> in
>> a list where the very notion of person is addressed. personal stuff
>> are
>> not scientific, but this does not forbid 3-talk on such "personal
>> things", once we agree enough on some axioms etc.
>>
>
> I agree. With Jesus as the fulfillment of the 2nd/3rd hypostases, i.e.
> the third-person pov, then He really is the "3-talk" on the ultimate
> personal God.
>
>>
>> >
>> > This goes back to his death and resurrection, which opened up the
>> way
>> > again for our relationship with the personal God.
>>
>> ... as far as "I" am Jesus. If not, I could argue that the message has
>> not even been delivered to me. Got an atheist education ... I stop
>> believing in Santa Klaus and Jesus the same day in my early childhood.
>> I was astonished that my cousins stop to believe in Santa Klaus but
>> kept they belief is Jesus.
>>
>
> Santa Claus is just a source of things, which are dispensable. Jesus
> is a source of the indispensable. You agree that we have to believe in
> some source of the indispensable.
>
>>
>> If this annoy you just put the third hypostase (the first person, the
>> universal soul) "above" the 0-person. This is just a tiny nuance,
>> unless you are sure by your literal interpretation of Jesus.
>>
>
> But the first hypostase is all truth, etc. (p), from which the
> second/third (Bp) and fourth (Bp & p) are derived.
>
>>
>> If that helps you it is ok. But, as others have illustrated, it seems
>> such believes are not necessary. Now the main the point is that if you
>> don't allow *possible* (re)interpretation of you theory, it would
>> prevent progress. Science = Doubt. Factual things like "Jesus is the
>> son of God" or "there is a primary physical universe" are scientific
>> statement only as far as we can conceive them as being false (or
>> better
>> refutable, but I am not sanguine about this).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> Regarding naming things and believing something literally. I'm not
> saying that Jesus was saying "What you see here is all there is to
> God". As I said above, I agree that we would not be able to see all
> there is to God. We are finite. Could you tell me a better way in
> which, if there were a personal God who is absolutely good and infinite
> and loving and the ultimate basis of personal communication and truth,
> that personal God could tell us, "Hello, I am the personal God, and you
> are made in my image and I love you and want to rescue you from your
> separation from me." How could he do it?
>
> So, if the personal God gave us a communication (Logos) that is more
> than just arithmetic truth about who we are, then would it be
> successful to throw it away and try to see if we can build everything
> from the ground up with just numbers? Science and Doubt is good for
> building, but you have to build given some kernel, and love and
> personhood is part of the kernel itself. The only way to know this is
> to be told by the source, the ultimate loving Person, through a
> third-person message (Logos). Now messages can always be misread,
> there is always some signal-to-noise ratio, but there is a signal, not
> just noise. But without an ultimate Person, it would be just noise.
>
> Tom
>
>
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jan 05 2007 - 11:29:52 PST