/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15472002
>modal collapse
Meme retort. The truth is the truth is the truth. All that is true is necessarily true or not true at all, merely a facsimile of a true thing. You're missing the forest for the trees so hard it's hilarious.

I repeat: "modal collapse" is a risible notion. The "contingent" vs "necessary" truths distinction is a meaningless play on words. Reality does not give a single shit about your stupid "propositional" games.

>>15472012
>All that is true is necessarily true or not true at all
Okay so you agree the square and diamond symbols never did anything, now what do you think of the simplified proof?

>>15472012
>>15472002
With some moronic ideas, only a high IQ autist can be stupid enough to believe them. "Modal collapse" is one such idea.

>but but but by definition a contingent truth is
A nonsensical notion is what it is you fucking morons.

>>15472014
> what do you think of the simplified proof
I don't.

We could also write it like this:

Ax. 1. [math](\phi \in P \land \phi \subseteq \psi) \implies \psi \in P[/math]
Ax. 2. [math](U \setminus \phi) \in P \iff \lnot (\phi \in P)[/math]
Th. 2. [math]\emptyset \notin P[/math]
Df. 1. [math]G = \cap_{\phi \in P} \phi[/math]
Ax. 3. [math]G \in P[/math]
Th. 2. [math]G \neq \emptyset[/math]

>>15472002
>What does /sci/ think of the simplified proof?
I think this defines a principal ultrafilter, and correctly concludes that a principal ultrafilter is nonempty. Whether or not this has any bearing at all on religion is left as an exercise to the reader.

>>15472002
god's existence cannot be proven, and you need to consider the possibility that god doesn't exist.

Wtf is a "positive quality"? Is it like an unstoppable mouse?

>>15473164
According to Gödel's axioms, if we assume that all mice are in fact stoppable, being an unstoppable mouse is not a positive quality. But if God has made an unstoppable mouse somewhere unbeknownst to us, then it might be a positive quality.

Does anyone know what modal logic Gödel is even attempting to use here? As I understand it, there are a bunch of different modal logics that model different things, that all use the same symbols but have wildly different semantics and derivation rules, and I can't find any reference as to which logic he is aiming for.

Any good books on metamodal logic? I'm trying to zoom out of the picture as much as I can

>>15473164
A positive quality is a quality that is positive or, equivalently according to Godel, not negative. That's as far as the semantic definition goes.
For good things (i.e. things with positive qualities outweighing negative qualities), existence is a positive quality and non-existence is a negative quality. For bad things, existence is a negative quality and non-existence positive. Because a godlike thing only has positive qualities and all possibilities are always accounted for (and necessarily true!) in Godels metaphysical multiplicity, existence is positive for it, which means that it could exist in some possible structure, which means it absolutely exists in all structures including our universe.
This is his actual argument btw.

It's funny how every schizophrenic mathematician making theological claims has ended up walking straight into paradoxes and inconsistencies, even those who were known to have demonstrated much greater rigor in the past.
I'd say they're trying to square a circle, but really the issue is more with mathematical realism than flying spaghetti monsters.

Can we run an experiment? Can we falsify it? No? Then it’s a complete waste of time

>>15472002
This is what happens when you let queer theorists and other assorted communists into the logic department.