/lit/ - Literature

>>20175435
Reminder
>there is no way to justify the principle of induction through empirical means
>there is no way to justify cause and effect through empirical means
>there is no way to get to the real causes of things through empirical means, no way to know why the laws of nature are this way and not the other
>most published research findings in science are false, not able to be replicated
>the replication crisis affects medicine and psychology the most, where financial corruption (eg. billions $ from vaccines and zombie pills) runs rampant
>the third leading cause of death is medical error

>>20175469
Yeah, I'm thinking BASED!

>>20175469
There is no way to justify cause and effect through any means. Deductive reasoning relies on starting from unprovable axioms to go anywhere

>>20175469
>>20175788
It's called truth and faith, you post-modernist retards.

>>20175788
Wrong Godel proved that there are a-priori truths which cannot be derived from the axioms of any formal system, but which we know are true through our direct experience of the divine mind (or Plato’s forms). Besides axioms are not arbitrary.

>>20175929
Are you talking about his proof of the consistency and completeness of first order logic?

>>20175929
Total misunderstanding of Godel. He proved there are always going to theorems unprovable using the the axioms of a current system(as long as that system is powerful as arithmetic). But those theorems are unprovable as either true or false and can be as added as axioms by themselves or as their negation. Axioms are most definitely arbitrary. No woowoo shit about Plato and the divine mind or he would have been laughed out of the community

>>20176632
>laughed out of The Community
Typical brainwashed zombie. Yes Godel was a Platonist and Christian.

>added as axioms
Those theorems CANNOT be taken as axioms, moron, because the formal system would not be effectively axiomatised in that case. True Arithmetic, the set of all true statements in the language of the Peano Axioms, is consistent and complete, but it’s not effectively axiomatised. The whole point of having a formal system is to be able to build from an underlying set of basic axioms from which you can derive everything else. Not just arbitrarily adding axioms to plug the holes in your system. If you take the Godel sentence as an axiom, you have to add an infinite amount of axioms, and this makes your system ineffectively axiomatised.

>unprovable as true or false
Yes FROM WITHIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM. But the whole point of the Godel sentence is that we know it’s true because our intellects are more powerful than any formal system we create. We are able to tap into the Platonic realm/divine mind and see the truth of certain propositions which are not derivable from the axioms, because we’re made in the image of God. This totally refutes the empiricists like AJ Ayer and Wittgenstein who wanted to boil down mathematics to linguistic tautologies (the only way to make sense of a-priori knowledge in an empiricist paradigm). Godel says NO, a-priori truth is not merely tautological; in fact there are theorems which are true but unable to be derived from the axioms. That proves they’re not tautological with the axioms.

Ever since Godel, the empiricist argument has completely fallen apart, but none of them have been able to see the relevance of it yet.

>>20176632
>>20176739
One other thing I forgot to respond to
>Axioms are definitely arbitrary
Utter moron. Degenerate. Idiot. Do you seriously think the laws of logic are arbitrary? Do you seriously think the Peano Axioms are arbitrary? Are you a total fucking soulless zombie?

>>20176739
Godel never claimed in a math paper that he could Jesus his way to divine truth. That would have been laughed at.

>Those theorems CANNOT be taken as axioms, moron, because the formal system would not be effectively axiomatised in that case

You have no idea what you're talking about. The classic example of a unprovable theorem with real content is the Continuum Hypothesis. Both CH or it's negation can be added to ZFC and work has been done with both systems. As far as still not being complete I said as much myself in that there will always be unprovable theorems in anything stronger than arithmetic.

>Yes FROM WITHIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM. But the whole point of the Godel sentence is that we know it’s true because our intellects are more powerful than any formal system we create

Again total woowoo bullshit. The only place that counts is within the system. Saying Jesus told you or you saw it in a dream is not a valid form of mathematical proof. You have zero training in formal logic.

>>20176755
>Do you seriously think the laws of logic are arbitrary? Do you seriously think the Peano Axioms are arbitrary? Are you a total fucking soulless zombie?

Absolutely they are arbitrary. See the different axiomizations of arithmetic like Presburger arithmetic(which is complete and has no unprovable theorems) or the multiple different types of logic studied. Category theory is popular now as a total alternative to set theory.

>>20176773
>>20176788
>the only place that counts is within the system
You didn’t understand Godel at all. The entire point is that there are statements WHICH ARE TRUE and WHICH WE KNOW ARE TRUE and which are expressible within the language of the system but which are not provable from the axioms. We are able to see their truth but the system is not, proving that our intellects are significantly more powerful than any formal system we create. That is Gödel’s revelation. It completely destroys the empiricist claim that a-priori truths are mere tautologies.
>they are arbitrary
If they’re arbitrary why are you having a debate with me right now using the laws of logic to make your points as though they hold any meaning in reality? If they’re arbitrary I’m just going to create my own formal logic which takes it as an axiom that whatever I say is right and all my statements are therefore proven in virtue of that axiom. Do you see how ridiculous you are?

>>20176850
>If they’re arbitrary why are you having a debate with me right now using the laws of logic to make your points as though they hold any meaning in reality? If they’re arbitrary I’m just going to create my own formal logic which takes it as an axiom that whatever I say is right and all my statements are therefore proven in virtue of that axiom. Do you see how ridiculous you are?

Because I'm assuming you are using the same logic as I am. If you don't start with the same axioms it's meaningless to say something is true or false using deductive reasoning. You fundamentally don't understand how deductive reasoning works. You have to start with foundational unprovable axioms that are arbitrary. If they weren't arbitary they would be provable.

>>20176876
Then all of your statements and arguments hold no objective meaning and it’s literally pointless to have a debate.
>if they weren’t arbitrary they’d be provable
First of all that doesn’t follow. It could be that our souls tap into the Platonic realm and interact with the immaterial laws of logic and so we know they’re true but don’t know how to prove them.
But I think they are provable by the impossibility of the contrary. Because if you take the position you have then we devolve into total relativism which is a self-refuting position.