RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 1:20:26 PM)
Hawking's concluding paragraph (in full) reads: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.wIthout it, we would stagnate. Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians.I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved." This is Hawking's conclusion, not the spin your post puts on Hawking's paper. Note that he talks about Godels theorem as though it applies to mathematicians and NOT physicists (It simply doesn't have the sweeping applications that your claiming for it). Also note that he's just giving his opinion, he's neither imploying Godel nor offering a different proof to reach his conclusion. Having found a problem that he has been unable to solve he's simply offering his opinion that it's unsolvable. Doesn't actually mean that someone else won't either figure it out or find a solution using a different theory.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 1:33:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Note that he talks about Godels theorem as though it applies to mathematicians and NOT physicists (It simply doesn't have the sweeping applications that your claiming for it). Of course it doesn't directly apply to any science. Science never proves anything in the rigorous manner meant when mathematicians discuss proof. That's one of the major flaws in most lay people's attempts to apply Gödel's theorem to areas outside math. Here's the part that really bugs me, people like tweaks thinks it means there is knowledge that can never be attained. Which is exactly the opposite of what it actually says. What it really says in a domain where it applies there must exist a conjecture that is true but cannot be proven. There is in math for instance Goldbach's Postulate that all even numbers greater than 2 are the sum of 2 primes. This is demonstrably true, i.e. you can find 2 primes that sum to make any even # > 2, but so far no one has been able to produce a rigorous mathematical proof that this is true and it may never be proven. That is all that Gödel's theorem says period.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 1:34:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What is the significance of Hawking's rejection of the view that Science will succeed in discovering a complete answer to these questions? Obviously, if we want a complete understanding, we need to find a method, or methods beyond Science. In the past we've simply started a new branch of science. For instance we have quantum physics NOT metaphysics and we've kept right on employing the scientific method, no dowsing rods or magic 8 balls for us. Woo was plan A, after thousands of years of trying that method with nothing but superstitious nonsense to show for it we came up with more rational methods and our knowlege has been increasing exponentially ever since. Seems to me like things are working very nicely. What method do you propose that will yield better than exponential results?

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 1:38:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Of course it doesn't directly apply to any science. Science never proves anything in the rigorous manner meant when mathematicians discuss proof. Your preaching to the choir, I posted a link explaining that pages ago. But Tweaks got a vested interest in not hearing it. I though it might help to point out that her own link debunks her position.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 2:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Of course it doesn't directly apply to any science. Science never proves anything in the rigorous manner meant when mathematicians discuss proof. Your preaching to the choir, I posted a link explaining that pages ago. But Tweaks got a vested interest in not hearing it. I though it might help to point out that her own link debunks her position. I didn't think you thought otherwise I just must have missed the earlier post and was simply trying, yet again, to explain what Gödel's theorem is really about.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 8:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What is the significance of Hawking's rejection of the view that Science will succeed in discovering a complete answer to these questions? Obviously, if we want a complete understanding, we need to find a method, or methods beyond Science. In the past we've simply started a new branch of science. For instance we have quantum physics NOT metaphysics and we've kept right on employing the scientific method, no dowsing rods or magic 8 balls for us. Woo was plan A, after thousands of years of trying that method with nothing but superstitious nonsense to show for it we came up with more rational methods and our knowlege has been increasing exponentially ever since. Seems to me like things are working very nicely. What method do you propose that will yield better than exponential results? I'm glad someone has appointed you to speak for Science and that you feel capable of interpreting Hawking to say things that he clearly wasn't saying. Good luck with that! You should be aware that Godel's limits are only one of a series of limits on knowledge. Others include for example: knowledge systems are subject to chaotic breakdowns, the impossibility of objectivity, the limits on all systems of symbolic representation, including language (which I doubt you are even aware of). All of which act as permanent limits on knowledge. Art and music are two other modes that humans have used to interrogate the human condition and existence, though both come with different sets of limits than those applying to knowledge. Ultimately, my feeling is that the problems inherent in any system of symbolic representation are such that any attempt to solve these questions using any system of symbolic representation is doomed to failure. If there is an answer or answers, any attempt to render it or them into discourse will necessarily be inadequate, it will corrupt the answer(s). That leaves personal inquiry as the only available method of addressing these questions that offers the possibility of success. If there is an answer or answers, the only place that answer(s) may be accessible is by looking inside ourselves.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 12:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. Bullshit. I always find these sorts of quandaries extremely frustrating. I mean, on the one hand we have the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and on the other hand a guy on an Internet message board calling it "bullshit". How is a person to decide? Sigh. What to do, what to do.... K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 3:54:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle That leaves personal inquiry as the only available method of addressing these questions that offers the possibility of success. If there is an answer or answers, the only place that answer(s) may be accessible is by looking inside ourselves. No matter how anti-science you want to be that doesn't make a different method one bit more credible After thousands of years of abject failure what would possibly make you think this is a method of aquiring knowledge?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 4:38:07 AM)
I'm not in the slightest anti-science. I just don't harbour any illusions about its limits. I've stated several times it's the most successful research methodology humans have invented. However, that doesn't enable science to exceed its limitations, no matter how fervently some people hope or claim it will. Problems start when people stipulate that Science is the only possible or admissible research method, or elevate a research method to the status of an ideology aka Scientism or confuse scientific orthodoxy with facts or truth. There are many areas where Science is an excellent research methodology, but that isn't a universal fact. There are other areas where Science doesn't seem to me to be particularly suitable.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 4:48:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. Bullshit. I always find these sorts of quandaries extremely frustrating. I mean, on the one hand we have the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and on the other hand a guy on an Internet message board calling it "bullshit". How is a person to decide? Sigh. What to do, what to do.... K. You might try understanding what he actually wrote and what his theorem actually proved. Or are you unable to understand the proof? Do you even understand why the proof doesn't apply to science?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 4:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle That leaves personal inquiry as the only available method of addressing these questions that offers the possibility of success. If there is an answer or answers, the only place that answer(s) may be accessible is by looking inside ourselves. No matter how anti-science you want to be that doesn't make a different method one bit more credible After thousands of years of abject failure what would possibly make you think this is a method of aquiring knowledge? I didn't say it was a method of 'acquiring knowledge'. Please look at what I have actually written and comment on that, if you like.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 10:23:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You might try understanding what he actually wrote... I could say the same. You appear willing to go to any length to preserve your faith in Scientism. For example, you've argued... quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen it isn't philosophy... and it sure as hell does not prove a single thing about there being any mystical claptrap being true. But then we have this... The bold extraction of philosophical observations from mathematical facts - and, of course, the converse - was Gödel's modus operandi and professional trademark ... Gödel's realist views were formulated mostly in the context of foundations of mathematics and set theory. Accordingly, your dismissal of his conclusions that Materialism is false and that the Platonistic view is the only one tenable as "mystical claptrap" amounts to nothing more than a recitation from your catechism. K.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 10:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel After thousands of years of abject failure what would possibly make you think this is a method of aquiring knowledge? Indeed. Doubtless that explains why CERN deemed it ridiculous to have a statue of Shiva in their courtyard. [image]http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva_statue.jpg[/image] K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 11:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You might try understanding what he actually wrote... I could say the same. You appear willing to go to any length to preserve your faith in Scientism. For example, you've argued... quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen it isn't philosophy... and it sure as hell does not prove a single thing about there being any mystical claptrap being true. But then we have this... The bold extraction of philosophical observations from mathematical facts - and, of course, the converse - was Gödel's modus operandi and professional trademark ... Gödel's realist views were formulated mostly in the context of foundations of mathematics and set theory. Accordingly, your dismissal of his conclusions that Materialism is false and that the Platonistic view is the only one tenable as "mystical claptrap" amounts to nothing more than a recitation from your catechism. K. So you don't understand the proof or even what it requires in order to be true. I'll try explaining it to you as best I can in English. This is the natural language version pretty much everyone accepts of the first theorem "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory " What that means is if the domain can be represented in the same manner as basic arithmetic, i.e. a finite set of axioms with certain requirements and a set of states that can be made to correspond to the natural numbers, then there has to be at least one true thing that cannot be represented by a rigorous mathematical proof. A mathematical proof is usually first taught in geometry but is a basic component of all higher level maths and underlies symbolic logic and therefor most computer programming. It is a standard that science does not attempt to meet. The second theory states that any domain that fulfills the requirements of the first theorem cannot inside that domain prove it is consistent. This one is much more complicated to explain but it arises from the proof of the first theorem. Basically a domain D, fulfilling Gödel's requirements, cannot prove D. Now there are 3 reasons Gödel does not apply to science. 1) Science has not yet been shown to have a finite number of axioms (It could be argued that science has no axioms in the mathematical sense) 2) Science does not have a way to express the elementary arithmetic operations. Adding a theory of gravity to a hypothesis of stone age tool making is a null. 3) Science does not attempt to prove anything in the mathematical sense. That is why you should learn a subject before telling someone who does know the field what something means.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 11:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel After thousands of years of abject failure what would possibly make you think this is a method of aquiring knowledge? Indeed. Doubtless that explains why CERN deemed it ridiculous to have a statue of Shiva in their courtyard. [image]http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva_statue.jpg[/image] K. You don't know anything about physicists do you? Try Googling Oppenheimer and Shiva

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 11:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You don't know anything about physicists do you? Try Googling Oppenheimer and Shiva Did you have a point? [:D] K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 12:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You don't know anything about physicists do you? Try Googling Oppenheimer and Shiva Did you have a point? [:D] K. Not one you can understand apparently.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 1:28:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not one you can understand apparently. My bet is that I understand more than you think. So let's have some fun. Spell it out for me, as if unto a child. K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 1:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not one you can understand apparently. My bet is that I understand more than you think. So let's have some fun. Spell it out for me, as if unto a child. I told you what to do. I see no reason to spend my time explaining it to you.

Yachtie -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/3/2013 1:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not one you can understand apparently. My bet is that I understand more than you think. So let's have some fun. Spell it out for me, as if unto a child. I told you what to do. I see no reason to spend my time explaining it to you. Easier to investigate miracles so the church can declare dead people saints. [8D]

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875