Is there any Mathematician in the house…
-
Ah, my bad. If you replace axiom with theorem in that statement then it becomes true, since the result Goedel's theorem is about theorems not axioms. However he did prove that adding additional axioms even an infinite number of axioms will not affect the results of Godel's theorem. You can't complexify yourself out of the problem. Anyway as far as your Goedel's theorem => God idea goes. That's completely bogus. You are making a number of wild assumptions to get there. First our universe is nothing but a logic system. When you do that you are confusing physics models with the real world. The models do a good job predicting observations, but it doesn't mean that the real world is a physics model. That's the main fallacy that many religious people fall into and feel they need to attack science over. Just because a model has a good fit with experiment, it doesn't mean that reality is an implementation of that model. Another issue with that assumption is that another solution to the problems introduced with Goedel's theorem is to abandon the law of excluded middle and accept statements that have partial truth values. Given that at the lowest levels nature is best modeled with quantum mechanics, trying to cram truth into a simple boolean state might be the real problem.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Andy Brummer wrote:
Ah, my bad. If you replace axiom with theorem in that statement then it becomes true, since the result Goedel's theorem is about theorems not axioms. However he did prove that adding additional axioms even an infinite number of axioms will not affect the results of Godel's theorem. You can't complexify yourself out of the problem.
All good, I figured it would be easy to misread so decided to run it by you one more time.
Andy Brummer wrote:
Anyway as far as your Goedel's theorem => God idea goes. That's completely bogus. You are making a number of wild assumptions to get there. First our universe is nothing but a logic system. When you do that you are confusing physics models with the real world. The models do a good job predicting observations, but it doesn't mean that the real world is a physics model. That's the main fallacy that many religious people fall into and feel they need to attack science over. Just because a model has a good fit with experiment, it doesn't mean that reality is an implementation of that model.
:confused: I can only imagine what the response would have been like had I actually talked about the subject referenced here. :) You might be thinking of somebody else. ;)
Belief in God Finding Allah Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Ah, my bad. If you replace axiom with theorem in that statement then it becomes true, since the result Goedel's theorem is about theorems not axioms. However he did prove that adding additional axioms even an infinite number of axioms will not affect the results of Godel's theorem. You can't complexify yourself out of the problem.
All good, I figured it would be easy to misread so decided to run it by you one more time.
Andy Brummer wrote:
Anyway as far as your Goedel's theorem => God idea goes. That's completely bogus. You are making a number of wild assumptions to get there. First our universe is nothing but a logic system. When you do that you are confusing physics models with the real world. The models do a good job predicting observations, but it doesn't mean that the real world is a physics model. That's the main fallacy that many religious people fall into and feel they need to attack science over. Just because a model has a good fit with experiment, it doesn't mean that reality is an implementation of that model.
:confused: I can only imagine what the response would have been like had I actually talked about the subject referenced here. :) You might be thinking of somebody else. ;)
Belief in God Finding Allah Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf
A.A. wrote:
:confused: I can only imagine what the response would have been like had I actually talked about the subject referenced here. :) You might be thinking of somebody else. ;)
Sorry about that, I'm 0 for 2 now and I'm beginning to feel like stapler. That was Negus with the Goedel => God stuff. I don't know what I was thinking. You wouldn't have used the G word for your deity.
If evidence reaches a conclusion then it makes sense. If it doesn't, it's just lame to go on TRYING to prove a theory that you made up when all the evidence points the other way. That's how crazy is made. -espeir