On science, philosophy, & religion

[Philip Thrift]

by Forbes physics writer (it is a bit odd Forbes has a regular physics columnist):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/30/no-science-will-never-make-philosophy-or-religion-obsolete/

@philipthrift

[Brent Meeker]

He's right that science probably won't replace religion, but he doesn't
understand the reason.  He writes as though it's because science hasn't
answered questions about the origin of life, the origin of the universe,
etc.  But those are scientific questions and it won't make any
difference when they are answered.  Religion (as sociologists all say)
exists to explain why a community's ethos is validated and mandated by
the universe.  A community needs to cooperate on a lot of things.  Some
of them can be justified/explained by functionality.  But there are
others that are somewhat arbitrary.   And there are many local optima in
the social space.  It's religion, including "civil religion" that
re-enforces these.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Jun 2020, at 22:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/30/2020 6:50 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> by Forbes physics writer (it is a bit odd Forbes has a regular physics columnist):
>>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/30/no-science-will-never-make-philosophy-or-religion-obsolete/
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> He's right that science probably won't replace religion,

With mechanism, that would be akin to replace a model with a theory.

That is exactly what the incompleteness theorem shows to be impossible. Note that

1) a theory is consistent (<>t, ~[]f) if and only if the theory has a model (that is Gödel’s *completeness* theorem)

2) no consistent theory can prove the existence of a model of itself

That is why, if a machine develop a belief in some reality (satisfying its beliefs), she cannot justify such a belief and it will require some faith.

That is also why if a machine asserts she knows that such a reality exists, she became inconsistent.

> but he doesn't understand the reason. He writes as though it's because science hasn't answered questions about the origin of life, the origin of the universe, etc. But those are scientific questions

The existence of the universe is a metaphysical question, or a theological one. And yes, those are scientific question in the sense that we can build theories and test them.

I can agree that physics explains the origin of life, but with mechanism, this explanation works then number or combinator theory explains the origin of the laws of physics, and the progress is that we go from the theology of Aristotle (God = Matter) to the theology of Pythagorus (revised by Gödel-Löb-Solovay) and (God = Number).

> and it won't make any difference when they are answered.

It has to, at least for those who say “yes” to the doctor, like the transhumanists, or the sick or wounded guy who want see the next soccer cup (when the technology is available).

Mechanist has its practice, like to put your “soul” on a hard-disk, or to upload yourself on the cyberspace…

At the same time, you can “know”, without the ability of not disbelieving this intuitively, that “you” are already there..

> Religion (as sociologists all say) exists to explain why a community's ethos is validated and mandated by the universe.

Religion is the belief in a “universe”. It is the belief in some “One”.

The relation between the ethos and that One is simply the idea that justice requires truth, and eventually is a problem of right.

> A community needs to cooperate on a lot of things. Some of them can be justified/explained by functionality. But there are others that are somewhat arbitrary.

The universal machines are stuck in between security and freedom, and in between collaborating or not, without the common hesitation between being to eat and being eaten, yes, already in the first person limit in the arithmetical reality (which is analytical viewed from inside).

Mechanism generalises human to (universal, Löbian) number, or ‘number. By ‘number I will mean any object denoted by the terms of a Turing complete first order theory.

> And there are many local optima in the social space. It's religion, including "civil religion" that re-enforces these.

Religion is just the belief in a reality beyond our consciousness here-and-now, and some impulse to share it with the others.

Religion is the only goal.

Science is the only mean.

To separate religion from science makes science into pseudo-religion, and religion into pseudo-science. It leads to technologies without meaning, or with a meaning restricted to “the boss is right”.

With incompleteness, science can see its limitations, and can study the geometry of its intrinsic ignorance/truth, and with mechanism, we can understand how that guides us, and that provide shortcuts, and some cautious warning, some applicable here, some applicable there.

Bruno




>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc4314d4-b7a4-eca9-8d92-1ed357b483c4%40verizon.net.

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Jul 2020, at 22:44, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Are you aware that some religions make it a sin to drink coffee? Do you think some scientific discovery will change this?

Are you aware that some “sciences" makes it a crime to eat some brownies?

10.000 papers, in serious journals, on the therapeutic benefits of cannabis has not succeeded in making cannabis out of the schedule 1 category, which is for the products with no medical applications.
All this adds reasons to be more serious in health and science/religion.

So no. I don’t think that a scientific discovery can change a religion or a science based on dogma, and even less so when the dogma are motivated by power and is used to steal money.

But when religion will come back to the scientific attitude, then such problems will go away. What will be left will be just the usual criminal activity. If we get serious in science/religion, it will be harder for criminals to misuse them for egocentric interest.

Religion is the model in the logician’s sense. It comes from the machine intuition that there is some reality beyond consciousness, and this is illustrated from the tension between truth, and the soul (S4Grz), and the intellect (G), and the “true intellect” (G*). Religion comes from the experience of “science” discovering its limitation.The “meaning” comes from the Model/Reality satisfying the Theory, not from the Theory, which can and should always been improved.

Religion is the belief in some reality. The religion of the sound machine can never be rationally justified by the sound machine to which it is applied. All universal machine with a bit of inductive beliefs cannot avoid it. Babies believe they have a Mother. They might be right, you know.

Bruno



>
> Brent