[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 756 KB, 2048x1382, call chut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2596644 No.2596644 [Reply] [Original]

Is it true than in any complicated enough system there is a sentence which while true, can not be proven by the rules of that system?

>> No.2596647

your language is too vague to answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

>> No.2596648

no

>> No.2596651

>>2596644
For what you're trying to say, yes. See Goedel's (sp) Incompleteness Theorems.

>> No.2596656

>>2596651
Can we consider reality as such a system?

>> No.2596664

>>2596656

No.

>> No.2596685

>>2596664
Are you saying reality is not complicated enough?

>> No.2596698

Only if you want it to be. You have to take free will of the occupant into consideration.

>> No.2596699

>>2596685
Reality is not a set of formal logic axioms. It can be described with such a set of axioms, though.

>> No.2596707

>>2596685

The universe is not based upon nor bound by our logic.
Our understanding of it may be subject to incompleteness, but that is not applicable to the universe itself.

>> No.2596715

>>2596698
Just because the way the brain works hasn't been thoughtfully learned does not mean it can not be predicted should we have the tools and knowledge to do so. Do you really believe in free will?

>>2596699
If reality can be described with a set of axioms, than should we bring up a system with the same axioms, will the system be complicated enough?
What I meant to ask is, is the paranormal possible in theory?

>> No.2596720

>>2596707
Than there are things in reality our logic can't explain?
or was I reading into your words the wrong way?

>> No.2596726

I know this music.

>> No.2596727

>>2596720
For any formalized logic system (which can describe Natural Numbers), such as Natural Numbers, modern set theory, there are boolean expressions in that discourse which are neither provable true, nor provable false.

That's one of the Incompleteness Theorems. I always forget the other one.

>> No.2596742

>>2596727
You lost me, I don't see how your post is in any way an answer to mine.

>> No.2596763

>>2596742
Logic doesn't explain reality. Science explains reality. Science does make use of logic.

So, perhaps a better question is hypothetically, could science be complete - that is, for any sufficiently detailed explanation of the test setup, is the correct prediction computable from a finite set of axioms - the complete science.

(Note that I used "correct prediction", which was meant to cover the apparent randomness of quantum theory. The correct prediction would be a prediction of probabilities.)

Off the cuff, I think it is conceivable that we might one day have a complete science. (Of course, our proof is evidence based, so we'd only have some degree of certainty that the complete science is actually correct and complete.)

Goedel's (sp) incompleteness theorem deals with abstract axiomatic logic systems, not science, observable phenomena, and reality.

>> No.2596768

>>2596715
>is the paranormal possible in theory?

No. All events that occur in the universe, no matter how bizarre, are fundamentally a part of the natural world. The very notion of the paranormal is completely nonsensical.

>> No.2596777

>>2596763
reality contains arithmetic

and as arithmetic is godel incomplete, reality must be

>> No.2596783

>>2596777
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Can you phrase that as a falsifiable prediction of observable phenomena, or phrase that as an assertion of formalized math or logic?

>> No.2596806
File: 23 KB, 300x375, carlderp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2596806

when you conciousness look at particle wave it turns into a particle

>> No.2596807

>>2596763
>Logic doesn't explain reality. Science explains reality. Science does make use of logic.
Funny, I was under the impression that reality follow rules, and science is merely the human attempt to discover and analyze those rules; I.E the other way around.

>>2596768
i know the logic you are using, but my notion was that if the 'Incompleteness Theorems' could be used in regard to reality, the fact that some phenomenons may exceed natural law, they may still exist in reality.

>> No.2596812

>>2596807
The universe very well may work according to some natural laws. The evidence seems to indicate this. Those natural laws are not a formalized axiomatic system of logic.

ZFC, now that is a formalized axiomatic system of logic with sufficient expressive power to describe natural numbers.

>> No.2596813

>>2596783
> missing the point

you have assumed that all of reality is material reality. yet mathematics is a part of reality which is not material.

> science explains reality

science explains material reality, a subset of reality.

>> No.2596822

>>2596813
>There exists something beyond the observable.
Citations please.

>> No.2596832

>>2596822
>solipsism

i already gave you an example. mathematics.

does it exist or not

>> No.2596834

>>2596812
Natural laws are NOT laws of logic?
Than what can exist in nature may still defy logic?

>> No.2596837

>>2596822
i don't think you can equate observable with material like that

logic is observed to work, yet is not material

>> No.2596845

>>2596832
It exists as a series of electrochemical impulses, or something, inside your brain, my brain, and so on. It exists as a bunch of writings in various books and in digital form.

I am unfamiliar with any other rigorous useful definition of exists. Specifically, I am unfamiliar with a definition of exists for purely abstract things, such as the existence of Platonic Ideals.

Specifically, if you cannot potentially falsify the assertion that "X exists" by performing an observation, then I would argue that you're misusing the word "exists".

>> No.2596846

>>2596834
The laws of physics are not a set of axioms describing a formalized logic.

The laws of physics are themselves logical assertions written in the formalized logic system of ZFC.

>> No.2596849

>>2596837
"Logic" is an abstract concept and doesn't have any meaning if you don't apply it to a concrete situation. On the other hands, I see every day plenty of situations where the laws of logic apply.

>> No.2596851

>>2596846
For comparison, ZFC is a formalized system of logic which can express Natural Numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

The laws of physics are not the description of a formalized system of logic.

>> No.2596853

>>2596846
So that means that reality can be explained by a set of logical axioms?

if reality follows the laws of physics, and those laws are explainable in the axioms of the formalized logic system of ZFC, than those it mean you can use those axioms to explain reality?

>> No.2596857

>>2596853
>So that means that reality can be explained by a set of logical axioms?
No, it merely means you don't know the difference between a formalized logic system like ZFC, and a set of axioms made within an already existing logic system, such as ZFC.

>> No.2596859

>>2596699

How the hell do you reconcile your empiricism with an axiom scheme for the universe? Do you ever listen to what you're saying?

>> No.2596864

>>2596807
>the 'Incompleteness Theorems' could be used in regard to reality

Except they can't because each is outside the other's scope. This is a pointless notion.

>> No.2596869

>>2596656

All evidence seems to indicate reality is finite. As such it would be decidable, which implies completeness.

>> No.2596871

>>2596857
I really don't, but lets try it again;

>reality follows the laws of physics
I hope we can agree on that.
>There is logic in the law of physics
that is, for condition a and set of laws b the result will always be the new condition c.
>the logic which physics follow has axioms
every logic has axioms, because if you dig into reason long enough you will hit either a wall or a circularity.

Was I clear?

>> No.2596873

>>2596859
Let me try again.

ZFC is an axiomized system of logic, capable of describing real numbers. Thus the Incompleteness Theorems apply to ZFC.

The laws of physics are written in the system of ZFC. The laws of physics are /not/ a formalized logic system. The incompleteness theorems do not apply to the laws of physics.

I can't get much more clear here.

>> No.2596877

>>2596873
Let me fix that.

ZFC is an axiomized system of logic, capable of describing **natural** numbers. Thus the Incompleteness Theorems apply to ZFC.

The laws of physics are written in the system of ZFC. The laws of physics are /not/ a formalized logic system. You cannot describe natural numbers with the laws of physics - that makes no sense. The laws of physics don't define anything like addition, mathematical induction, and so on. Thus the incompleteness theorems do not apply to the laws of physics.

I can't get much more clear here.

>> No.2596879

>>2596845
>can't ontology

>>2596849
>didn't answer the point
mathematics is falsifiable, yet you claim it only exists in books and minds etc

presumably before man existed, maths didn't

and presumably, because of you reliance on falsifiable, if the universe didn't contain sentient beings capable of carrying out the scientific method, science wouldn't exist.

got to go to work now, but your extension of this sophomore Popper+materialism to everything is full of pitfalls

>> No.2596880

>>2596869
>reality is finite
both time and space are finite? wow.
A 'sentance' in reality is a fact; each passing moment brings new facts.

>>2596864
Why are you saying that reality is outside of the theorem scope?

>> No.2596882

>>2596873

That's fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with:

>It can be described with such a set of axioms, though.

As you love saying, citations please.

>> No.2596884

>>2596879
>mathematics is falsifiable
Mathematics is not falsifiable like science is falsifiable. You can never prove a math theorem wrong by making an observation.

>> No.2596888

>>2596879
just typical aspie who can philosophy of science and turns it into philosophy of everything.

>> No.2596885

>>2596869
The evidence is still below the bar required by the normal standard of science, but the evidence is leaning towards - is consistent with - an infinite in spatial extent and infinite mass universe.

>> No.2596889

>>2596882
The entire point of this discussion is to explain how the Incompleteness Theorems apply to ZFC, and not to the laws of physics, as the laws of physics are not a formalization of an axiomatic logic system capable of describing natural numbers.

>> No.2596897

>>2596879
>presumably before man existed, maths didn't
>and presumably, because of you reliance on falsifiable, if the universe didn't contain sentient beings capable of carrying out the scientific method, science wouldn't exist.

I notice that you haven't defined exist in a way that I could prove your assertions wrong through scientific evidence.

>> No.2596899

>>2596885

Infinite mass? You serious? Where did you drag that out from?

>> No.2596900

Mathematics exist whether man does or not. A puppy can't walk into a room and suddenly eight manifest. QED, maths are not subject to human existence.

>> No.2596906

>>2596899
http://space.mit.edu/~kcooksey/teaching/AY5/MisconceptionsabouttheBigBang_ScientificAmerican.pdf

>> No.2596907

>>2596889

That's fine, but you claimed that reality can be described by a set of axioms.

Citations please.

>> No.2596908

>>2596884
>herp
so if i observed 2 + 2 making 5....?

obviously this would never happen, yet you claim this truth (that it won't happen) doesn't exist, except in some material form in books in our mind.

herp and indeed derp

>> No.2596909

>>2596900
Your argument is not falsifiable. I have no way to prove it wrong. There is no observation which I could make to prove it wrong. Thus I have no recourse in this discussion. In a sense, you are right because no one can prove you wrong.

Congratulations.

>> No.2596911

>>2596908
You cannot observe 2 + 2 = 5.

You could observe a situation where putting 2 apples next to 2 apples added up to 5 apples. That's not a flaw of math. That's a flaw of the laws of physics which use math. 2 + 2 would still equal 4, because that's its definition. No amount of observation would change that.

>> No.2596913

>>2596906

He said it's a mathematical possibility. You know, kind of like doing calculus without the Reals. He does not present any empirical evidence to suggest why it should be the case.

>> No.2596915

>>2596907
Actually, no, the other guy argued that reality could be described by a set of axioms. I just ran with that.

Arguably, the evidence indicates that a set of axioms is at least partially successful in describing the observable world, namely the laws of physics.

>> No.2596919

>>2596897
if you define "exists" as "amenable to science" as you have implicitly through out all your posts. then you are both correct, but proving nothing.

i don't actually have to have a complete definition for "exists", i just have to show that something that patently does exists, and exists outside the "scientific", which has been done. mathematics exists.


you are essentially claiming it doesn't.

>> No.2596920

>>2596908

Here's another example: whether you're dead or not, pi is still pi. There, done. If we all suddenly whisked away to absolutely non-existence, then pi would still be 3.14. There, non-subjective. Deal with it.

>> No.2596922

>>2596915

Bullshit. If you use a name without a tripcode you take responsibility for EVER post using that name and no tripcode. Like this one >>2596699 which clearly claims that reality can be described by a set of axioms.

>> No.2596923

>>2596913
Enjoy trolling much, bringing that up again in this rather unrelated discussion?

Fine. I again argue that the evidence seems to indicate that a sufficiently advanced alien culture which arose through Darwinian evolution will have a math functional equivalent, dare I say isomorphic to, Natural Numbers.

>> No.2596925

>>2596911
>reads first line, didn't address the actual point

>> No.2596926

>>2596922
Obviously, because every Anonymous takes responsibility for every other Anonymous.

Also, I did say:
>Arguably, the evidence indicates that a set of axioms is at least partially successful in describing the observable world, namely the laws of physics.

>> No.2596928

>>2596923
oh god, a fucking post modernist

maths is just a cultural construct

>> No.2596930

>>2596925
No, you just misunderstand.

2+2=4 because that's its definition.

The scientific fact that 2 apples, put next to 2 apples, makes 4 apples, is the result of the laws of physics. The laws of physics could be wrong. They're only as good as our evidence for them. However, we seem to have accumulated a shitton of evidence for this particular proposition, so I don't expect it to be proven wrong any time soon.

>> No.2596931

>>2596923

While I would agree that they would, I find it absurd to claim the "evidence" suggests that, seeing how it's entirety is a single species on a single planet.

Analytical, deductive thought suggests that. An argument by analogy, if you will. Kind of like the ones some cunt in Greece used.

>> No.2596933

>>2596928
You mean that you're not the same anon who keeps harassing me about this? My bad.

I still hold that point of view about the available evidence and its implications.

>> No.2596935

>>2596925

You need to shut up. Everyone in this thread has proven that math is not subjective. We've proven (and you can too) that math exists whether we are here to "debate" about it or not.

What grand philosophical scheme are you attempting to conjure up by denying the true nature of maths? You're being insane. You continue to repeat, frequently, that you think maths are subject to human interpretation even though all the evidence tells you that it is NOT. That's the epitome of insanity - continuing to do something even though it's incorrect/not working.

Now fuck off and go back to godlikeproductions where you can create more parallels of pseud-science you ignorant fuck.

>> No.2596940

>>2596930
>abstract arithmetic only coincidentally isomorphic to irl arithmetic. laws of physics a priori to irl maths.

well now you are just trolling

>> No.2596941

>>2596926

Well, yeah. Ergo samefag. What you're doing is cowardice. You can claim any post is not yours but still maintain the ego trip of having a recognisable presence (not that we'd fail to notice your obnoxious posts were they anonymous). You want to have your cake and eat it too.

And no, the laws of physics can be empirically refuted. Axioms can't. Furthermore, if incompleteness does not apply to reality as you claim, then EVERY fact about reality can be deduced, analytically, from the set of axioms. Can the laws of physics do that? Why bother with empirical experiments, then?

>> No.2596942

>>2596931
>While I would agree that they would, I find it absurd to claim the "evidence" suggests that, seeing how it's entirety is a single species on a single planet.

Meh. Abiogenesis is the sample size of 1. Evolution has a shitton more than just 1 piece of evidence going for it, which is why I feel comfortable making my claims.

>> No.2596947

>>2596940
No. I don't believe it's coincidence. I believe that natural selection "shaped" our brains to intuitively understand basic arithmetic, as it is an incredibly good model for the natural world, and having a good model for the natural world allows us to make accurate predictions, which is good for the survival of our genes.

>> No.2596950

>>2596947
Now, that does leave the remaining question, why is the natural world so easily modeled? Why does it have so much order, quote unquote, and why is it so easily and "beautifully" described?

I don't know.

>> No.2596952

>>2596942

Sure, and evolution has produced many species sufficiently "advanced" to use tools. I would argue only one of them has a concept isomorphic to the Naturals. Especially seeing how the Naturals are infinite.

>> No.2596953
File: 13 KB, 251x250, cat upside down.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2596953

how do we know math is real u guise

>> No.2596955

>>2596947
so basic arithmetic existed before human brains? ( i assume you think if something can shape evolution then it qualifies as existing)

where did it exist? materially?

check mate

>> No.2596958

>>2596952
I'm pretty sure that various monkeys can be trained to do basic arithmetic.

I also believe, based on the available evidence, and possibly from the Principle of Mediocrity,that there is a singular shared objective natural world, and that humans can obtain reliable objective evidence on it.

Thus, I think that it would be evolutionarily favored to be able to do addition on whole numbers.

>> No.2596960

>>2596955
>so basic arithmetic existed before human brains? ( i assume you think if something can shape evolution then it qualifies as existing)
>where did it exist? materially?
>check mate
I think I just made that argument here:
>>2596845
>It exists as a series of electrochemical impulses, or something, inside your brain, my brain, and so on. It exists as a bunch of writings in various books and in digital form.
>I am unfamiliar with any other rigorous useful definition of exists. Specifically, I am unfamiliar with a definition of exists for purely abstract things, such as the existence of Platonic Ideals.
>Specifically, if you cannot potentially falsify the assertion that "X exists" by performing an observation, then I would argue that you're misusing the word "exists".

You seem to be confused about the arguments which I'm making.

>> No.2596963

>>2596955

So, you're saying that before humans existed, math didn't. That means that, instead of a planet being "one planet" or a "single planet", it could have been a million planets? That doesn't make sense. You're trying to tell me that we create a set of rules that govern the laws of the universe, math being one of them. If you had said we discover or interpret them, that's fine. But then you act like they're SUBJECT to interpretation. No, they're not.

Answer my question, immediately. How come there aren't a dozen earths floating around? Oh wait, because there was only ONE MADE? So, if we can COUNT THAT THERE IS ONE FUCKING EARTH, then that means that math did exist prior to humans. Idiot.

>> No.2596965

>>2596960
because you've claimed arithmetic existed before humans

then that its existence requires the human brain or human literature/activity

you can't have both

>> No.2596968

>>2596953

i can't stop lol'ing

>> No.2596970

>>2596960
To continue, as I believe that the mind is a physical process in the brain, there are only a finite number of possible thought processes.

It's like a computer program written in C. For a given contract, there are only a finite number of programs that can solve that contract for a given executable size, and there will be a program which is smallest, or tied for smallest, just like there will be a program which runs quickest or is tied for quickest.

Thus the laws of physics could prove that math is one of the "best" models of the natural world - best in terms of evolution survival value.

I admit that the sample size is rather small for biology, which is why I'm also heavily using my knowledge of CS, such as basic pathfinding algorithms.

>> No.2596971

>>2596963
>So, you're saying that before humans existed, math didn't

he is, yet he's also claiming humans evolved to do arithmetic because it worked

why it worked he admits is a problem

which is the whole fucking point everyone has been assaulting him with

he just shrugs

>> No.2596972

>>2596965
>you can't have both
Obviously. Physics has always existed.

The laws of physics can be modeled with human math. Human math didn't exist before humans, and does not exist apart from the human mind, or written form.

What's the problem here?

>> No.2596974

>>2596972
are the laws of physics material?

>> No.2596976

>>2596972

Your interpretation of math didn't exist before you were born, but I assure you, math existed before any of us were born to be interpreted.

What's so hard about that?

>> No.2596978

>>2596972
do you believe the laws of physics contain logic, as well as arithmetic?

for instance do the laws of physics contain the assertion that something can't be both true and false at the same time?

>> No.2596979

>>2596971
If I can't answer a "why?" question, so be it. I'm more concerned with accurate falsifiable predictions, aka SCIENCE!

copypasta inc:

You perhaps have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science cannot and will never answer all "why?" questions. It is impossible. Every single explanation to a "why?" question begets another "why?" question. You can answer "why?" questions in terms of a model, but if they ask why is the model true, then you cannot answer "Because the model" as that would be circular reasoning. You can only explain it terms of something else.

This regress must be terminated. In science, this regress is terminated with evidence. Every scientific "why?" question is ultimately answered with "We don't know. It is, because that's what the evidence says."

It can't be turtles all the way down.

>> No.2596984

>>2596978
Ok. Now this one is easy. No the laws of physics do not.

ZFC contains the assertion that something cannot be both true and false. The human understood laws of physics are expressed in the logical framework of ZFC.

The laws of physics do contain a self consistency rule /about the universe/, but not about basic logic.

>> No.2596985

ITT

an aspie limiting the universe of discourse to that which he is comfortable with, science

very typical aspie behaviour

>> No.2596986

>>2596974
>are the laws of physics material?
I don't know what this means.

Can you phrase this in terms of a falsifiable prediction, or in terms of a logical assertion answerable through a math / logic proof?

>>2596976
>Your interpretation of math didn't exist before you were born, but I assure you, math existed before any of us were born to be interpreted.
>What's so hard about that?

Namely the definition of "existence". We're having a argument / confusion over definition. I'm sorry.

>> No.2596987

>>2596985
Well, yes I am. The universe and science by definition covers all things which are observable. If it's not observable, then it's not relevant, and I am ill equipped to discuss paranormal things.

>> No.2596989

>>2596974

This poster is a fucking moron. Probably trollin'.

>> No.2596991

>>2596989
You would be surprised. Given this discussion, it's readily apparent that a lot of /sci/ horribly misunderstands basic things, that math is true because we define it to be true, not because of evidence. Math is not science.

Then there's this whole mental masturbation over Platonic Ideals and Platonic Existence. What does it mean for the number 5 to exist, or the color blue? If you mean "Does there exists things in the natural world for which this model applies?", then yes they exist.

>> No.2596994

>>2596984
so something like the fine structure constant existed before man, yet whether it was true or false did not exist before man?

also, if physics contains arithmetic (or forces it upon our evolving brains), but not logic. yet arithmetic can be derived from logic. isn't that coincidence strong evidence that the laws of physics are coincident with other truths

>> No.2596999

>>2596991
you've pretty much set up the laws of physics as platonic ideals

>> No.2597000

>>2596994
What do you mean "the fine structure constant" existed? Can you be more clear?

Did the universe expand at that specific rate (or whatever that constant is for)? Then yes. I believe that things exist without an intelligent mind to observe it.

>> No.2597002

>>2596999
When I say physics exist, I was too vague. I apologize. What I meant was that the universe existed, and that events transpired according to objective rules. Do the objective rules "exist"? I don't know. Does the universe exist, and did it transpire according to these rules? Yes.

>> No.2597005

Math and logic don't exist. I can't make a butterfly net and run around collecting the wild 4's that don't exist in deep space. I could create a very sophisticated butterfly net and trap neutrinos. I could create a very large butterfly net, given time and resources, and wrap it around a star. I could even get an ice cream scoop and carve out the part of your brain where meat jello holds your understanding of the number four. The star, the meat jello, and the neutrino all exist.
The 4 does not.

>> No.2597015

> Do the objective rules "exist"? I don't know

this could have saved us some time here

everyone arguing against you is basically saying whether these exist or not, and in what sense, is worthy of consideration and can't just be dismissed.

you are saying, i think, that as it falls outside science and goes into metaphysics, it is pointless to examine.

no one is actually disputing truths here, just disputing what is a real problem and what isn't

>> No.2597017

>>2597015
Sorry.

It's just that there doesn't appear to be a clear way to answer yes or no to that particular question. "Existence" has a clear definition when applied to objects in the objective world, but the objective rules governing the objective world are not objects, and thus I lack the proper framework to answer such questions.

>> No.2597023

>>2597005
again, this implicit assumption that material existence is equivalent to existence.

you may define it like that, maybe you are right. but then using that definition to then argue against non-material existence is just tautology.

to be meaningful you need to go back and show your definition of reality as material reality is correct.

>> No.2597024

>>2597017
you go further

you assert no such framework exists, or could exist

>> No.2597026

>>2597024

If you know what it is, enlighten us.

>> No.2597030

>>2597026
i don't

but neither do i "herp derp i don't know about it so it doesn't exist"

>> No.2597032

>>2597024
Basically what this guy says:
>>2597026

I haven't heard of a good one yet, but I apologize if I came on too strongly there. If you look over the rest of this thread, you will clearly see me ask repeatedly what does it mean to exist for a non-observable thing?

>> No.2597034

>>2597017
do frameworks exist? in any sense of the word "exist" you like

just trolling

>> No.2597035

>>2597032
does the observer exist?

>> No.2597041

>>2597032
if you equate "exists" with "observable" you must justify that.

>> No.2597045

does a definition of the word "exist" exist?

>> No.2597046

>>2597032
basically, you don't want to do philosophy, outside of philosophy of science

>> No.2597051
File: 23 KB, 217x208, 1286884676925.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2597051

does exist?

>> No.2597052

>>2597041
It's a definition. The only justifications for definitions are appeal to authority or appeal to consensus.

>> No.2597053

>>2597035
check and mate

>> No.2597054

>>2597046
>basically, you don't want to do philosophy, outside of philosophy of science
Well, I am largely interested in the philosophy of ethics, but other than that, no not really.

>> No.2597065

>>2597052
well, i'm guessing we have no authority in something so fundamental as the nature of existence.

so the best we can say of reality is that it exists through consensus.

a consensus i assume stretches back to before life existed, by way of the current existence of evidence for the past.

this is pretty nihilistic stuff

>> No.2597068

>>2597065
And you are an idiot conflating assertions about the natural world, about what is real, with what should be the definition of real, what should be the definition of existence.

>> No.2597069

srs Copenhagen interpretation in this thread

>> No.2597071

>>2597065
Also, shift key, do you have it motherfucker?

>> No.2597075

>>2597068
nope.gif

if you say this is what is real, and here is my definition of real

then of course we apply your definitions to your assertions.

where on earth is the conflation?

>> No.2597084

>>2597075
Good question. I merely assumed that you are ascribing additional properties to "real", which means that it may not be simply a matter of definition.

>> No.2597090

>>2597065
clever, but not quite the claim

he is basically saying we can know nothing outside of our frameworks, which arrive through consensus.

we have no way of working outside our frameworks. so the validity of those frameworks cannot be tested. except perhaps by things like internal consistency.

he's got a kind of brain in a jar thing going on, except it is reality in a jar.

>> No.2597099

>>2597090
No, I'm saying that I lack the appropriate language to continue this discussion. I'm not saying my knowledge is bound by the language defined by convention, but I am saying my ability to communicate is limited by language which is defined by convention.

>> No.2597101

>>2597099
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis discussion up in here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

>> No.2597105

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Limitations_of_G%C3%B6del_s_theo
rems

>The conclusions of Gödel's theorems are only proven for the formal theories that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers as a subset.

The natural numbers clearly are just a subset of physics. Not to mention that the universe does not like to deal with infinities, which do occur in the natural numbers, so it might be possible to express reality without relying on the complete set of natural numbers

Therefore gödel's incompleteness theorem does not necessarily apply to scientific understanding of reality.

/thread

>> No.2597106

>>2597099
that is a massive cop out

>> No.2597108

>>2597105
thread moved on a long time ago

>> No.2597109

>>2597105
>The natural numbers clearly are just a subset of physics.
Thinking about it again, it depends on what you mean by "physics" and "a part of".

I still stand by my original claim that I /think/ that 1- you can have a complete science, that the available evidence hasn't nixed that yet, and neither does the Incompleteness Theorems.

So, go ahead and define physics and "a part of" however the f you want. If you disagree with (1), then I will argue that you're wrong.

>> No.2597111

>>2597106
What? No it's not.

>> No.2597118

>>2597109
>you can have a complete science, that the available evidence hasn't nixed that yet, and neither does the Incompleteness Theorems.
>hasn't nixed that yet

argument from ignorance?

>> No.2597119

>>2597099
this isn't the problem and you know it.

the problem is that tautologous arguments (reality by definition is that which is observed, therefore reality is that which is observed) tell us nothing.

you are such a nihilist

>> No.2597124

>>2597118
What? I'm merely stating that the possibility remains that there is a finite set of axioms which accurately describes all observable behavior.

I am unaware of any evidence which contradicts this. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that the objective world does follow unalterable objective rules. We know an approximation of them currently - it's called modern physics.

>> No.2597127

>>2597119
>nihilist
You use that word, but you do not know what it means.

>> No.2597130

>>2597111
you are saying we cannot communicate about this problem (what reality is) and that it is all "by definition".

you know we may be able to define terms where we can talk about it.

the real issue though is that you want to present tautologies as meaningful truths

>> No.2597133

>>2597130
And that is why I have been asking repeatedly for a workable definition of existence for abstract things. See else-thread for the numerous examples.

Also, "only observable things are real" is not a tautology. Again, you use that word, but you do not know what it means.

>> No.2597134

>>2597127
>>2597127
nothing can be known or communicated

okay. not a total nihilist, but almost

but as usual, you answer one line of a post and ignore the rest that you can't answer

>> No.2597140

>>2597133
"observable things are real & reality is that which is observable" is the tautology

fucksake, goldfish memory

>> No.2597142

>>2597134
>nothing can be known or communicated
I never said that you asshat.

Are you trolling? Really?

I said that my current language is insufficient to discuss the existence of non-observable things. I have also asked repeatedly for someone to teach me such language so that I may meaningfully participate.

>> No.2597145

>>2597140
>"observable things are real & reality is that which is observable" is the tautology
That's still not a tautology. It's a circular definition. That's fundamentally different.

A tautology is "Something is real, or it's not." A tautology is a boolean expression where no matter the truth values of the atomic components, the expression overall is always true.

>> No.2597147

>>2597134
i think he actually has a tunnel vision, short term memory issue

because everything from three posts ago is forgotten or contradicted

>> No.2597149

>>2597142
again, tunnel vision. that's the definition of nihilism.

was spelling it out for you

you pretty much said nothing can be communicated

>> No.2597152

>>2597149
I'm pretty sure nihilism is the rejection of all objective truth. I've been arguing for objective truth, the objective truth of the observable world, for quite a while now.

>> No.2597165

>>2597145
okay, if you really need everything spelled out here is the tautology in boolean terms

[A & (A=>B)] => B

A = reality is that which is observable, B = observable things are all that is real

it is always true but pretty meaningless

>> No.2597167

>>2597152

you've been arguing observation is everything, the very opposite

>> No.2597168

>>2597152
if you can't see how "the observable truth of the objective world" requires something like faith to work, then herp derp

>> No.2597175

>>2597152

if you can't see how "the objective truth of the observable world" requires something like faith to work, then herp derp

>> No.2597192

>>2597175
Of course it does. All non-trivial belief systems do.

>>2597165
Here, because you're stupid, let me translate that boolean logic to English.

> A = reality is that which is observable, B = observable things are all that is real

> [A & (A=>B)] => B
> ([reality is that which is observable] and ([reality is that which is observable] implies [that which is observable is real])) implies [that which is observable is real]

I have never said nor implied something so convoluted anywhere in this thread. I have not asserted that particular tautology. That is fundamentally different than what you claimed was a tautology:

>"observable things are real & reality is that which is observable" is the tautology

Please educate yourself on basic logic before we have this conversation again.

>> No.2597197

>>2597167
No, I've been arguing that
1- there is an singular shared objective natural world, and
2- that we can observe it, /and/ the interesting part
3- everything in that singular shared objective natural world can be observed.

Again, I have not rejected all objective truth, which is the definition of a nihilist. A nihilist would not claim that you exist like me, are sentient like me, and that we see the same singular shared objective natural world.

I do claim that you exist like me, have a mind like me, and see the same singular shared objective natural world.

>> No.2597210

>>2597192
As an example
"Even is odd, and odd is even."
That is not a tautology. If those are definitions, then it's circular. However, it is not a boolean expression which is always true irrespective of the truth value of the atomic sub-components.

>> No.2597226

>>2597197
oh shit. an objectivist

i think the circular reasoning/tautology thing goes like this

(a<=>b)=>b

that seems to fit with the case here

>all non trivial *belief* systems require faith

well, more circular reasoning there

>> No.2597234
File: 14 KB, 300x330, duty_calls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2597234

Anywho, off to bed I go, with my duty finished (pic related).

I am unsure if nocaps retard boy is a troll, nor the OP, nor if they were samefagging. I do try to avoid obvious trolls. I think it's just that they're idiots well outside of their league, as evidenced by the confusion between a circular definition and a tautology.

To conclude, a complete and accurate predictive science might be possible, and seems likely to exist given the current evidence.

Godel's (sp) Incompleteness Theorems state that we can construct questions about basic math which are neither provable true nor false, which means that we can ask similar convoluted questions about the natural world. However, the mistake made near the beginning was conflating "All convoluted questions cannot be answered" with "the universe doesn't obey objective laws". I just realized that phraseology now, which should hopefully explain things a lot better. I now realize that I was mistaken about some of the finer details, but correct in arguing with OP as he held a wrong notion about the implications of the Incompleteness Theorems as it applied to science and the objective natural world.

>> No.2597239

>>2597197
i know you've been arguing it, but these are your axioms. and as such are unbeatable. because when people argue against the axioms you say they are axiomatic

>> No.2597243

>>2597234
go to bed means you lose sucker

Godel in captcha, no lie

>> No.2597246

>>2597239
>>2597234
wrong against axioms = wrong

>> No.2597248

>>2597234
Specifically, let's consider the Continuum Hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

This hypothesis is independent of ZFC. This is an example of the Incompleteness Theorem at work. CH is neither provably true nor provably false in the framework of ZFC.

So, one could ask a physics question in such a way that answering it would require answering whether ZFC is true. That question of physics would be unanswerable.

However, is there a situation which, given all of the required details, could physics not predict the outcome (or probability distribution of outcomes)? No. It could. At least, I argue that such a "complete science" is possible, and arguably supported as likely by the known evidence.

>> No.2597250
File: 44 KB, 250x191, fail - warp factor fuck you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2597250

And I lied earlier. I needed to do that last little pontificating. Now I'm off to bed.

>>2597243
>go to bed means you lose sucker
And fuck you.

>> No.2597252

>>2597248
>
So, one could ask a physics question in such a way that answering it would require answering whether **CH** is true. That question of physics would be unanswerable.
fixed

>> No.2597255

>>2597234
>To conclude, a complete and accurate predictive science might be possible, and seems likely to exist given the current evidence.

if this is your only assertion then you were the troll as your claims didn't use such tentative language before

you also mentioned faith.

your scientific position is different from you position of faith. conflating these two positions has made it impossible to argue with you successfully as you move as you wish from one to the other.

9/10 good troll

>> No.2597262

>>2597239
>i know you've been arguing it, but these are your axioms. and as such are unbeatable. because when people argue against the axioms you say they are axiomatic
And non-sequitirs right up until the end. We haven't even been discussing whether these are right or wrong. We've been discussing anal pedantics, like whether I'm a nihilist, or what is a tautology, and the OP's question of whether the Incompleteness Theorems imply that science can never be complete. (It doesn't.)

>> No.2597265

>>2597255
>your scientific position is different from you position of faith.
No it's not. Science requires faith.

It requires faith that inductive reasoning works.

Depending on what you mean by faith, I also have faith in Occam's Razor, and /maybe/ the Principle of Mediocrity.

>> No.2597268

>>2597262
i think you used those as a distraction from the main thrust against you, which i think had great merit, and that you later admitted. that your system is based on faith.

so you win on details about what a tautology is, but lose on the main point. that your philosophy cannot be defended as it is a matter of faith.

>> No.2597275

>>2597268
>Science requires faith. I win!
Uh... sure? I never refute that. I'm always quite open and clear about this. I never implied otherwise. Go ahead, read the thread, see where I claim that I don't have faith, and science doesn't require faith. Go on.

This is just another bullshit argument, a strawman, attacking an argument I never made.

>> No.2597279 [DELETED] 

>>2597265i'd say science requiring faith, and access to reality requiring science, is nihilism

believing in a house of cards built upon faith is the same as believing in nothing

>> No.2597283

>>2597265
i'd say science requiring faith, and access to reality requiring science, is nihilism

believing in a house of cards built upon faith is the same as believing in nothing

>> No.2597284

>>2597279
Oh, this ought to be good. What's your alternative? Are you implying that you can have a non-trivial not nihilist world view?

>> No.2597293

>>2597275
i may have missed it but i think you said it a good deal late in to the argument.

okay i assumed you had some foundations to all your assertions apart from faith. i think that is reasonable.

if you'd said it earlier on. i'd have just not bothered. arguing with faith is impossible

>> No.2597294

>>2597283
>i'd say science requiring faith, and access to reality requiring science, is nihilism
>believing in a house of cards built upon faith is the same as believing in nothing
Also, that's still wrong. That's not the definition of nihilist. You cannot win this argument through redefinition of the terms. That's another argument fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
>Nihilism is the philosophical belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

I have been quite clear that I think that values and knowledge can be known, and can be communicated. So what if that requires faith? That doesn't make it nihilist you twat. Nihilism is the /active rejection/ of such things, which I definitely do not do.

>> No.2597302

>>2597284
i don't know. i claim socratic ignorance.

>> No.2597311

>>2597294
>twat

no need for insults

i thought this was pretty civilised

if you reject faith as a valid basis for belief, then either delusion or nihilism follows from your position, if you don't then it doesn't.

the other clue about your nihilism, maybe just extreme pessimism, was what you said about language

>> No.2597313

>>2597284
>not nihilist

so you are a nihilist?!

>> No.2597316

>>2597302
>i don't know. i claim socratic ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
>Nihilism is the philosophical belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.

"Extreme skepticism". "condemning [objective] existence". Sound familiar? Protip: It's you. You're the (almost) Nihilist.

>> No.2597317

>>2597293
>arguing with faith is impossible

It is. I should go to bed.

>> No.2597318

>>2597313
No. I fully assert the existence of the singular shared objective natural world, which makes me not a nihilist.

You are the one with "extreme pessimism" and "a radical skepticism that condemns [objective] existence". You are the (almost) nihilist.

>> No.2597322

>>2597317
Samefagging asshat. You are a troll aren't you? God I wish I was a janitor or a mod so I can ban you.

>> No.2597324

>>2597316
you equate socratic ignorance with nihilism? it's the very opposite

>> No.2597327

>>2597324
No. It's not. In fact, your /extreme/ form of Socratic ignorance is that /you know nothing/, which is the f'ing literal definition of nihilism.

Socratic ignorance is that for /some/ subjects, you don't know, and then you inquire, gain knowledge, and then you /know/. You never gain knowledge. You remain forever in a state of nothing.

>> No.2597333

>>2597327
Let me fix that up. It's somewhat unclear.

>Socratic ignorance is that for /some/ subjects, one doesn't know, and then one inquires, gain knowledge, and then ones /knows something more/.

>However, you never gain knowledge. You remain forever in a state of nothing. Nihilism.

>> No.2597336

do you accept that matters of faith are impossible to argue with

protip: use a tripcode

>> No.2597341

>>2597336
One cannot use simple logical arguments against positions that are held as a matter of faith.

That does not mean that the discussion is over. One can resort to another "kind" of argument, such as persuasion. Or one can identify logical inconsistencies in the beliefs held by the opponent, and point those out. (That's my preferred tactic for the average theist. I do that hoping that he'll accept evidence and reject theist god.)

>> No.2597342

>>2597333
why do you assume that?

i don't know if we can have truth systems without faith. i'm optimistic (because of things like maths) that we can.

but i don't know because i haven't studied everything i possibly can on the matter.

that is nihilism? or are you just doing a "no you are" argument

>> No.2597345

>>2597336
>protip: use a tripcode
But that would defeat the purpose of my evil plan to get everyone on /sci/ posting under the name Scientist!

>> No.2597348

>>2597342
In which case, then no you're not nihilist. I think that you are, but you're saying just the right words to claim that you're not.

>> No.2597356

>>2597342
Also, if you're not sure if you can hold non-trivial knowledge without faith, then you're not practicing Socratic ignorance, asshat. Another obvious attempt at dodging the issue. What, being called a nihilist is so bad? That's what you are. You reject faith, reject knowledge based on faith, and now you're clinging desperately to this idea that you probably never had before, that you probably never even thought of before, that you might be able to have non-trivial knowledge without faith. It's an asspull made in "bad faith". No intellectual honesty here.

If you were actually practicing Socratic ignorance, you would be doing that as an inquiry to learn. However, we've already established that you're not learning, because you don't have any faith, and you're unsure if you can have knowledge without faith.

>> No.2597360

>>2597341
pursuasion without logic.

how does that work exactly?

i would suggest you just read the standard crit of objectivism. unfortunately it contains logic, which you've decided isn't allowed.

i have to go to work now

>> No.2597365

>>2597356
>religion

>> No.2597367

>>2597360
>pursuasion without logic.
>how does that work exactly?
Just went full retard.

You really ought to be at least a little educated, if only about your own world view. And yes, because it's my last post before bed, I'll brag and mention I was the president of my school's debate team, and I am relishing in picking apart every intellectually dishonest, every bullshit argument, every argument made in ignorance, that you have. And that's all you have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion
>Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding oneself or another toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means.

>(though not always logical) means.

You have to be in high school, and a rather bad one, to not even know this. Not paying attention in English class, are we?

>> No.2597373

>>2597365
No no, religion != faith.

Faith is a priori reasoning. Nothing less, nothing more.

Religion has many nuances, but it always includes the worship and/or veneration, of some higher power, being, or ideal.

Science is not that. There is no worship nor veneration. There is no "higher" power, being, or ideal. There is just predictive power based on inductive reasoning on evidence.

>> No.2597383

>>2597367
>school debating team
lol

>> No.2597386

>>2597367
lots of ad hominem in this thread for such a great debater

>> No.2597387
File: 46 KB, 600x595, Eve-no-Jikan-coffee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2597387

>Is it true than in any complicated enough system there is a sentence which while true, can not be proven by the rules of that system?
no!
you are suggesting that the whole is more than the sum if its parts
that's not how the universe works, even more that's not how anything works
even your imagination is not that "wild"

>> No.2597394

>>2597373
>faith is a priori reasoning

lol. maths is faith.

>> No.2597519

>>2596845
>I am unfamiliar with any other rigorous useful definition of exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_theorem
You are familiar with talking out of your ass.

>> No.2597525

>>2596884
Non-Euclidean geometry

Are you typing with your ass?

>> No.2597542

>>2597248
You don't know what you're talking about. The independence of Continuum Hypothesis from ZFC has nothing to do with the Incompleteness Theorem, it has merely to do with what can and cannot be proven in ZFC. The Incompleteness Theorem is a general statement that any (finitely axiomatizable) system of logic cannot prove all the statements true in every model of the system. It doesn't make the (perfectly) obvious choice that it is impossible in advance to know what the theorems are of a given set of axioms.

You're the worst kind of scientist, the kind who speaks incorrectly about matters he knows nothing about, as if with great confidence, in order to inflate his egotistical self-regard, sacrificing meaningful dialogue as the price. You're no better than the creationists.

>> No.2598302

>>2597542
>The independence of Continuum Hypothesis from ZFC has nothing to do with the Incompleteness Theorem,
No, it has everything to do with it. The Incompleteness theorem states that for any non-trivial axiomatic system, there will be logical statements made in that system which is independent of the axioms of the system.

CH is an /example/, as I said earlier, of such an axiom. The Incompleteness Theorems say that there will be more logical expressions in ZFC like CH.

>>2597525
> >Mathematics is not falsifiable like science is falsifiable. You can never prove a math theorem wrong by making an observation.
>Non-Euclidean geometry
Please describe an observation which "falsifies" Euclidean geometry. You cannot. You can falsify the assertion "Space is Euclidean", but it makes no sense to say that you have "falsified Euclidean geometry". Learn to math.

>>2597519
No, merely mistaken. I forgot. I now have a useful language to discuss the existence of solutions to a problem - a set of constraints.

I still lack the language required to discuss the existence of axioms apart from the context of a particular axiomatic system, which is what I meant to say earlier. Sorry, let me clear that up.

>>2597386
>lots of ad hominem in this thread for such a great debater
Isn't it grand? I have thrown in lots of ad hominems to make myself feel better. However, luckily, I have also actually provided good rebuttals to every reasonable refutation raised against me. I'm not relying on ad hominem as an actual argument, just amusement.

Captcha: Quinine, unsingd

>> No.2598306

>>2597542
>The independence of Continuum Hypothesis from ZFC has nothing to do with the Incompleteness Theorem,
No, it has everything to do with it. The Incompleteness theorem states that for any non-trivial axiomatic system, there will be logical statements made in that system which is independent of the axioms of the system.

CH is an /example/, as I said earlier, of such an axiom. The Incompleteness Theorems say that there will be more logical expressions in ZFC like CH.

>>2597525
> >Mathematics is not falsifiable like science is falsifiable. You can never prove a math theorem wrong by making an observation.
>Non-Euclidean geometry
Please describe an observation which "falsifies" Euclidean geometry. You cannot. You can falsify the assertion "Space is Euclidean", but it makes no sense to say that you have "falsified Euclidean geometry". Learn to math.

>>2597519
No, merely mistaken. I forgot. I now have a useful language to discuss the existence of solutions to a problem - a set of constraints.

I still lack the language required to discuss the existence of axioms apart from the context of a particular axiomatic system, which is what I meant to say earlier. Sorry, let me clear that up.

>>2597386
>lots of ad hominem in this thread for such a great debater
Isn't it grand? I have thrown in lots of ad hominems to make myself feel better. However, luckily, I have also actually provided good rebuttals to every reasonable refutation raised against me. I'm not relying on ad hominem as an actual argument, just amusement.