[ 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: 224 KB, 890x890, 1335294187059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4647005 No.4647005 [Reply] [Original]

I hear people saying that Incompleteness theorem proves that math and logic have limits and that spirituality is what lies beyond that limit.

Aside the spirtual, is IT really sets limit to logic and math?

>> No.4647018

Modal logic is limited in the sense that there's stuff there you can't prove. But this just means that facts like "an apple is an apple" is self-evident, thus it makes no sense to ask for proofs for it.

>> No.4647016

yes.
Dualism is proven.

>> No.4647034

>>4647018
So what it does is to show that axiomatic truths can't be proved?
I thought we already knew it.

>> No.4647043

The first incompleteness theorem states that there are statements in Peano Arithmetic that can neither be proven or disproven. If you're a Platonist, this means that there are true statements that cannot be proven. This is a limitation of sorts, but I don't see how THEREFORE, JESUS.

The second incompleteness theorem is silly. I don't see why everyone thinks it's a big deal.

>> No.4647051

There's no reason to say spirituality is what lies beyond the limit, as you say you've heard it expressed. Being unable to prove certain truths doesn't justify an appeal to a non-proved system. It's actually kind of counter-intuitive.

>> No.4647054
File: 153 KB, 1000x1247, 133332612552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4647054

Well yeah. I comment on this all the time.
With respect to logic, you'll never find an ultimate cause, because that chain of causality stretches eternally as every cause is an effect of some previous effect and so on.
Now mathematics, unless it can describe why the Mandelbrot set looks the way it does, such a description will remain in the realm of the metaphysical.

>> No.4647065

>>4647054

In other words you have no idea what incompleteness actually is.

>> No.4647069

>>4647016
You forgot your tripcode.
>>4647043
Also this, the incompleteness theorem is only valid for arithmetical axiomatic systems.

>> No.4647070 [DELETED] 

>>4647034

Well, yea.

We more or less already knew that within logic, the incompleteness theorem just confirms it, and shows us why.

You can just ignore that bs about "spirituality".

>> No.4647071
File: 11 KB, 480x360, carl sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4647071

>>4647054
unexplainable =/= hurr durr must be god.

>> No.4647079

>>4647034

Well, yea. And what these said.

>>4647069
>>4647043

>> No.4647083
File: 108 KB, 576x748, 20120218.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4647083

>>4647071

Metaphysics =/= hurr durr god

>> No.4647084

>>4647005
>Aside the spirtual, is IT really sets limit to logic and math?
It sets a limit to what you can describe in a consistent way. Simplifying a bit (and only a bit) it shows that any language that is complex enough to describe certain fairly simple propositions allows you to write self-referential inconsistent propositions, like "this proposition is false" -- i.e. you can write bullshit in any sufficiently powerful language. Hence, any proof system defined over such a language cannot be both consistent and complete, as you either can't find a proof for either the bullshit or its negation (as neither makes sense), or you can prove bullshit in it (which of course makes it inconsistent).
Obviously, spirituality doesn't have anything to do with it; spirituality can't tell you anything about such propositions either, because they are simply nonsensical.

>> No.4647087

>>4647043
Altho that is true and is a problem, it is not really a practical problem. It pretty rarely happens that one comes across something that is true but cannot be proven or disproven in the current system.

>> No.4647091

>>4647054
>you'll never find an ultimate cause.
>he thinks fabric of omniverse is sewed by causality
I seriously.

>> No.4647098
File: 34 KB, 396x403, 263886_1327178511203-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4647098

>>4647065
So it isn't what it sounds like. My apologies for assuming but was the assumption that far from close?

>>4647071
>implying implications

>>4647091
pic related.

>> No.4647099

>>4647087

It is practical enough. Incompleteness is one of the reasons mathematics is undecidable. And imagine how wonderful a general mathematics algorithm would be. Think of all the professors we would put on the street.

>> No.4648699

Godel was a jew, that explains everything.

>> No.4648730

this thread is so full of dumb


except for this guy>>>>>4647084

>> No.4648736

>>4647083
Why does your pic say that schrodinger's can implies the copenhagen interpretation must be wrong?

That is fallacious. Schrodinger's cat doesn't change anything at all, it was ORIGINALLY intended as a way of showing that the copenhagen interpretation is absurd...
But, these days it is simply seen as a mental exercise to get people used to thinking in terms of the copenhagen interpretation.

Please delete that comic from your computer, or photoshop our that line where he says it means the interpretation is wrong, thanks.