/lit/ - Literature

>>16037790
Where do I start with Gödel?

>>16037790
>Dies weighing less than 100 lbs after eating nothing but baby food for fear of being poisoned

Godel may not be the best example to follow

I'm gona need evidence for the existence of God.

b&rp

I don't care. Deez nutz are a priori truth

>>16037790
How did he prove the existence of God?

>>16037811
>eating nothing but baby food for fear of being poisoned
If he was truly smart then why did he assume baby food isn't poisoned?

>Destroys the founding fathers

>On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his application. The judge turned out to be Phillip Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.

>>16037868
Based, had he lived today he'd be dispensing redpills on /pol/

>>16037846
Tired old ontological proof dressed up in modal logic. Wasn't the only embarrassing thing Godel did

>>16037868
Based

>>16037889
>Unrefuted arguement is strengthened by modal logic
>Quick, quick, if I use smarmy adjectives I'll definitely refute him

>>16037790
in A priori truth
or in a priori truth?

>>16037889
Cope
Reminder it has been computer verified and there have been no counter arguments to it.

>>16037916
Axiom 1: You're full of shit
Conclusion: You're full of shit

Refute that

>>16037823
Ax. 2. is utterly ridiculous.

>>16037916
>Reminder it has been computer verified
based retard it doesn't take a computer to verify that proof, maybe try to understand it before you live by it

>>16037960
I know that retard, I've written automatic theorem provers before

>>16037943
Nope

>>16037868
>Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship.
It would have been useful to know this now.

>>16037804
Buy secondary lit about him instead

>>16037974
>I've written automatic theorem provers before
lol, I've actually taken courses in this and that's not what they are called, keep pseuding

>>16038010
>that's not what they are called
False

>>16038010
>I've actually taken courses in this
What course? It’s basically a side topic in any CS or math class unless you’re at the graduate level, in which case you wouldn’t say you’ve taken courses in it but that you study it.
You’re a bad liar.

Godel's cat was truly thought-provoking.

>this thread
holy fuck i'm not on /sci/?

>>16038000
It had to do with the 5th article. Technically if control 3/4 of the states, you can grant yourself unlimited power

>>16038060
I prefer Einstein's fish

>>16038024
>>16038050

Not him but they're called proof assistants. If you just set Coq loose by itself it wouldn't get anywhere in any reasonable amount of time

>>16037867
What demon will poison babies?

>>16038069
>Technically if control 3/4 of the states, you can grant yourself unlimited power
Surprised Hollywood didn't get wind of this

>>16038050
Academia is larger than you know it burger. In-depth courses on automating reasoning in Prolog exist and I've taken one (it sucked, fuck Prolog).

>>16037813
The blind watchmaker and the something can't come from nothing argument combined are proof enough, besides other people's experiences.

>>16038069
There's no way that's what he meant. Of course if you have a constitutional majority you can change the constitution into whatever you want it to be, that's not some logical flaw.

>>16037811
Can someone recommend books to overcome hypochondric paranoia? I have it in check by ignoring my health but whenever something serious happens I wait too long and when I finally go to the doctor I can't trust their judgement and end up spiralling back into all-consuming hypochondria.

>>16038148
>something can't come from nothing argument
Read krauss
Extra credit for reading all the seething philosophers

>>16038149
It is a flaw because you can amend the constitution to change state representation in the senate. There has to be 100% state approval to deprive a state representation but you change the amendment process itself if 3/4 states agree to add or remove a certain states representation in article 5

>>16038194
>Read krauss
>read a retard
no thanks

>>16038148
>The blind watchmaker and the something can't come from nothing argument combined are proof enough
you didn't think your cunning worldview all the way through, did you?

>>16038201
SEETHING THEIST

>>16038211

>>16038194
Krauss defines a set equipped with elements and laws "nothing", that is wrong.
Are you the moron I argued with yesterday on the meta thread on /sci/? You're incredibly unintelligent.

>>16038197
I know jackshit about US Constitution, but unless there are severe limits imposed on what an amendment can do, this is something of a moot point, isn't it? If you already have the power to issue amendments, you've won.

>>16038229
So do you even believe that a state of nothingness can exist? If so why do you think something can't come from nothing is a relevant argument?

>>16037790
>>Destroys Empiricism
>>LITERALLY proves the existence of God
Really? Where? How can you prove anything without empirical evidence?

>>16038229
I was being facetious, clearly. Sorry you were still sore from whatever buttblasting /sci/ gave you.

>>16038257
>I was being facetious
false
>Sorry you were still sore from whatever buttblasting /sci/ gave you.
I won the argument, you just write like that other moron, so I thought you may be the same imbecile. Of course, on 4chan, there are many of you dogshit idiots, so I should have realized.

>>16038267
Are you new here? No one here ever means read something when they tell you to read it. They’re just calling you retarded.
>I won the argument
Oh you sad fuck.
If I write like him did you seriously let yourself SEETHE over obvious flippant remarks twice in a 24 hr period?

>>16038003
what secondary lit?

>>16038308
I may be mad, but I'm right and you're wrong, dipshit.

>>16037876
>implying intelligent people use /pol/
oh i am laffin

>>16038380
(((You)))

>>16038380
lel

>>16037823
bitch you think I know Modal-Logik?

>>16038308
There is no seething here.
This guy >>16038331 isn't me

>>16038229
Imagine using an infinite regression argument for God in the year of our lord 2020.
Imagine further still using an infinite regression argument while simultaneously maintaining that the conditions necessary to require an infinite regression don’t exist.
Actually a mad lad.

>>16038388
>everything i don't like is the jews

>>16037790
based godelbro

>>16037804
logics textbooks, start with the basics or you won't understand anything

>>16038416
To be fair, his only dislikes could be infiltration, systematic dismantling of other nations’ cultures, bloodsucking practices, and tribalism.

>>16038395
then you can't understand the argument, come back when you at least possess the basic instruments to talk about godel

>>16037790
>Kurt Gödel's achievement in modern logic is singular and monumental – indeed it is more than a monument, it is a landmark which will remain visible far in space and time. ... The subject of logic has certainly completely changed its nature and possibilities with Gödel's achievement." —John von Neumann
Imagine someone lauded as the smartest human by a lot of smart people say this about you

>>16037868
I don’t understand why that would disqualify him.

>>16038197
Good luck achieving that. Its far more likely that apathy and gradual civic decay leading to a de facto disregard of the constitution would result in excessive power collected in the executive.

>>16038252
I cant believe people continue to ask questions like this

>>16038527
The dude came up with a formal logic proof of God, I don't think he was excessively concerned with what would happen in the real world

>>16038481
>literally the smartest person to have ever lived
>was a self-proclaimed capitalist, contributor to the neoclassical economic theory of general equilibrium (thus debunking leftist nonsense) and an ardent opponent of the Soviets
How can leftoids ever recover?

>>16037790
But did he prove catholicism?

>>16038194
>krauss
Refuted

http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/my-cgi/blog.cgi?first=53&last=53

What I would like to know is if his theorems have wider implications beyond just logic. Are they relevant to computers, the human mind, or even some deep fact about the nature of the universe?

Gödel himself believed that his proofs proved that there is a special power to the human mind that computers cannot have which allows them to make powerful intuitions without the use of algorithms, but I never understood the reasoning behind this. And clearly this is a proposition of natural science.

>>16038569
>and an ardent opponent of the Soviets
>Von Neumann was, at the time, a strong supporter of "preventive war." Confident even during World War II that the Russian spy network had obtained many of the details of the atom bomb design, Von Neumann knew that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. He predicted that were Russia allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, a war against the U.S. would be inevitable. He therefore recommended that the U.S. launch a nuclear strike at Moscow, destroying its enemy and becoming a dominant world power, so as to avoid a more destructive nuclear war later on. "With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when," he would say. An oft-quoted remark of his is, "If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

>>16038594
Godel was a hardcore mathematical Platonist no theorem need for him to say computers couldn't do everything people can

Reminder that the God naysayers are likely foucoultian homosexual copers
The none existance of God is the basis of their immorality

>>16038594
>Gödel himself believed that his proofs proved that there is a special power to the human mind
If I'm not mistaken it is that a human can recognize that a statement is both true and unprovable and it is somehow related to the halting problem.

>>16037790
neologicism is the way though.

>>16038586
>The quantum thomist
Imagine the cognitive dissonance, holy founding fathers of shit.

>>16038605
>Godel was a hardcore mathematical Platonist no theorem need for him to say computers couldn't do everything people can
Yes, but a philosophical position like that is just a matter of taste. It doesn't carry the weight of a formal argument.

>>16038629
Not an argument. Also, read his credentials

>>16038642
Thomism used Aristotelian physics. It's like an astronomer believing in astrology or a chemist in alchemy

>>16038594
godel completeness theorem establishes completeness of machine realizable logical states.

incompleteness theorem is equivalent to halting problem.

>>16038667
He addresses that here: http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/my-cgi/blog.cgi?first=44&last=44

if you are a theist in 2020 you are too retarded for life sorry. this is all the space that should be wasted on that issue.

>>16038696
>tripfag
not an argument

>>16038699
it wasn't an argument, just a statement of fact.

>>16038540
I guess you can say it's self evident

>>16038715
Typical childish tripfag behaviour

>>16038696
>adhering to established dogma of religions
retard
>believing in the existence of God, The One, Intelligence, etc
patrician

>>16038692
He's addressing why Aristotelian metaphysics is still relevant to him. Not why Aristotelian physics still matters. Aristotelian physics is easily disproved Galileo dropping shit off the Tower of Pisa was a disproof of heavier objects falling faster than light ones like Aristotle claimed

>>16038692
>http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/my-cgi/blog.cgi?first=44&last=44
If the guy is so great why is he not famous as Krauss?

>>16038481
>A Quote form the Wikipedia
yikes

>>16037823
Ax.2 and everything that follows is just plain flase

>>16038739
>>believing in the existence of God, The One, Intelligence, etc
this is like enjoying anime. it's fine as recreation but don't pretend it's not bad.

>>16038740
Galileo and Descartes were mechanists, which is an outdated philosophy refuted by quantum mechanics
http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/book/whatIsPhysicsLI.html

>>16038761
>ad verecundiam

>>16038682
>incompleteness theorem is equivalent to halting problem.
I understand that a logical biconditional relates them (P <---> Q), but going so far as to say they are equivalent isn't strictly true. The halting theorem is a consequence of the incompleteness theorem as it pertains to computing. This is a bit of a quibble but they aren't substitutable. The incompleteness theorems would be a superset of the halting problem.

Godel's incompleteness theorems were a great achievement of mathematics but his philosophy and theology are mediocre (just what you'd expect of a paranoid schizophrenic).

OP (like most other people ITT) didn't read Godel or any serious secondary works. There's a very pop science understanding of his ideas here... Also Godel's ontological proof is the WORST argument for the existence of God, nobody takes it seriously.

>>16038769
It was actually from goodreads

>>16037868
>>16038069
Its literally whats happening with Russia with Putin

>>16038594
>>16038609
He was just being a cherry picking faggot. He based that statement on nothing but the ability to have a “feeling” of correctness which he himself would be disgusted at if encountered in a mathematical proof. It “feels” as if P should be strictly smaller than NP and it’s incredibly hard imagining otherwise, that doesn’t make it true. That’s not a power of the human mind, it is an example of our worst tendencies that we’ve been battling against ever since the invention of philosophy. Oddly enough, this is what’s wrong with philosophy. People can’t seem to separate the people from their ideas. Just cause he made great contributions in one area, doesn’t mean he wasn’t retarded in others.

>>16038787
That's cool bro but heavier rocks don't fall faster than lighter ones. Aristotelian physics is wrong

>>16038787
>ad verecundiam
Not at all. If he has something to say, why aren't people listening to him? Surely his debating skills are as advanced as Krauss's?

Why would truth matter if it exists outside of our experience

>>16038826
Matter takes after form(truth). To understand that truth means to understand matter.

>>16038826
It's polite.

>>16038826
literally don't understand what you mean

>>16038788
yea i meant they are both instances of a general category theoretic idea, not that these two are substitutable.

>>16038899
No idiot. One is a direct consequence of the others’ logical pattern, it’s not that they’re both instances of the same thing. It’s like saying rocket ships are part of the theory of relativity.

>>16038930
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Lawvere%27s+fixed+point+theorem

>>16038945
I'm not the anon you're responding to and half of my reply to you will be off subject, sorry for that. I think you should kill yourself. Firstly because the opinions you hold and the analogies you make are retarded. Secondly because you are a tripfag. Please kill yourself. Don't bother responding to this message as it would only prove that you're still alive, which would cause me great pain. Right now, nothing can bring me more joy than picturing you dead.

>>16039173
my takes are simply correct.

>>16038406
Based retard

>>16038899
>literally don't understand what you mean
Unsurprising

>>16039197
what's your take on suicide though?

>>16039374
i dont have a take.

>>16037790
>LITERALLY proves the existence of the unknowable
Whoa, impressive. So what's the proof? Or is the proof just >>16037823 in which case, it only applies to math, i.e. not reality?

This channel has some quality videos on him
https://youtu.be/B2DY8WvSOLU

>>16039499
Cringe and not pythagoraspilled

>>16038787
>Galileo and Descartes were mechanists, which is an outdated philosophy refuted by quantum mechanics

Didn't read any of your other stupid posts, but this is wrong. Mechanism is ONLY refuted if there is such a thing as instantaneous action at a distance (or as Newton dubbed it, "occult qualities in nature"). Bell's Theorem admits a multiplicity of interpretations that need not necessarily entail nonlocality. And even if we do accept something like that, we need to differentiate non-separability between entangled systems from non-local causal influences propagating between them.

>>16039765
Oh God, is this what happens when I get to deep into Logic?

>>16038076
moloch although he likes them cooked

>>16037943
Why?

>>16037868
Incredibly based.

>>16038802
>nobody takes it seriously

Whenever I see a statement like this, it seems to be a tell that someone doesn't actually know what they are talking about.

>>16037790
>Reaches beyond the affirmation or repudiation shallow dogmas, and destroys your entire form of life

...and it WAS personal, kid.

>>16040412
>we can't talk about it
>realtards destroyed

>>16037868
Absolutely based

>>16037790
Started reading g Escher Bach but it had those weird maths signs so I had to put it away.

>>16038148
But my personal experience tells me that God isn't real. I tried to make a personal connection with God and he basically stood me up.

>>16037790
>Destroys himself
>Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of mental instability and illness. He had an obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could subsequently no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death.[31]

>>16037943
How? I see no issue with the claim that any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Ok, here i go.
>Definition: nothing is any bladeless knife with missing handle.
>Definition: a symbol is something, instead of nothing. It is only understood by it's using.
>Definition: A sign is also a symbol.
>Let:
>A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, the main upper case characters of the latin script.
>Let:
>a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y and z, the main lower case characters of the latin script.
>Together, lower and upper case lead to the next definition:
>Definition: the system of both upper and lower case latins scripts is called the Latin alphabet.
>Note: Is unavoidable the circularity when declaring the latin alphablet? The sigs L, D, e, t, f, i, n, t, o found in "Let" and "Definition" were used in beforehand.
>Note: Can any declaration of the natural numbers using signs be circular, because of the notion of sign already presupponing that of number?
>Definition: concatanation of latin scripts is any juxtaposition of signs in the latin alphabet system.
>Note: Isn't the last definition circular as it consists of words?
>Definition: a word is any concatanation of latin scripts.
>Note: definition of single words leads to the dictionary paradox.
How can one be any formal at all? How can one have systematic understanding of anything? I don't know answers to the notes.

>>16040752
He died of true love. Lovelets won't understand.

>>16037790
Talented logician but completely batshit insane, especially later in life.

>>16038194
If I redefine words to mean what the creator of the argument didn’t intend for them to mean, I could prove the Earth is made of cheese

Hegel retroactively refuted him

>>16042751
He proactively refuted him. Hegel was first.