/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 22 KB, 212x270, 1388308825435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:20:04 2013 No.6255848 [Reply] [Original]

Just getting into this. WT actual F? Is "incompleteness" the end of logical thought? Does it make it all pointless? Are we to give up?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:21:03 2013 No.6255854 It's just nihilistic mathematics. Don't bother with that pop science crap.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:23:33 2013 No.6255870 I am temporarily, I guess, plunged into despair. It seems to just wreck everything.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:29:33 2013 No.6255913

>>6255854
Yeah but the problem is, I get it. I see where he is going with the whole "any sufficiently consistent system" shit. That's like "any Turing complete system," and that means any system capable of abstract computation. So, again, or still I wonder, why go on? Why take things to the next level if the next level is annihilation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:34:33 2013 No.6255948 Am I in the wrong field (mathematical/philosophical logic), or are all fields corrupted?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:38:03 2013 No.6255969 Does this not fry all brains?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 04:44:33 2013 No.6256001

>>6255969
And if not, why not? As I said, I am new to this. Naive, if you will. But, my understanding is that many people have wrestled with it for many years. I come as a new convert to the new religion, if you will, burning with intensity about this new knowledge, asking you who have lived with it for decades to help me understand how you have reconcile this realization to your daily thoughts and lives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 07:07:33 2013 No.6256697 >>6256001 >I am new to this. Naive, if you will. no shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 07:27:04 2013 No.6256768 Jüdische Physik

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:42:35 2013 No.6257533 >>6256768 >not a jew >not (really) a physicist >go back to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 03:04:22 2013 No.6259523 What..?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 04:23:22 2013 No.6259590 >>6255848 you clearly dont understand shit, but im about to go to sleep, will post explanation tomorrow

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 05:08:18 2013 No.6259620

>>6255848
"Incompleteness" says that there will be questions in mathematics and logic that will never be able to be answered. Don't get upset of it though, like these other guys. It's nothing different from science. Some questions in science may never be answered.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 11:56:19 2013 No.6259946 >>6259620 No

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 12:15:49 2013 No.6259993

>>6259620
It's quite different, actually. In the physical sciences, there will always be more questions, but there are no questions that can't be answered. If we work hard enough and long enough, we'll figure it out. Incompleteness guarantees two things:

1) There are questions that we will _never_ be able to answer.
2) There are questions that we will be able to answer, but incorrectly, and we won't be able to figure that out.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:47:20 2013 No.6260173

>>6259620
>>6259993
There are ends of trains of logic because life is more than that, just like another side is creativity.

Causation in an infinite regress still ends with a Creation, a Cause. Such are algorithms. If causation is replaced with maybe an idea of Oneness as the universal algorithm, then the universe would act, more than logically, like one being or "for" One.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 13:52:20 2013 No.6260177 People think nihilism is bad but nihilism is actually a wonderful thing. It gives you freedom to create anything, and because it all comes and goes into nothing, it doesn't matter. It's mathematical zen.

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 14:17:20 2013 No.6260216

>mfw the intense, raging ignorance in this thread

Incompleteness doesn't say anything about "we will never be able to solve this question, boohoo"

It says that specific axiom systems can't solve all questions.

That doesn't stop us from coming up with new axiom systems. Peano arithmetic doesn't prove consistency of Peano arithmetic, but ZFC sure as hell does. (and ZFC+existence of large cardinals, proves con(ZFC) even)

Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:19:19 2013 No.6260649

>>6260216
> Peano arithmetic doesn't prove consistency of Peano arithmetic, but ZFC sure as hell does
what do you mean?
i know about relative consistency proofs, and Peano is relative consistent to logic axioms.

also Euclidean geometry is relative consistent to absolute geom

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:24:19 2013 No.6260657 >>6260173 I didn't think it could happen, but /sci/ has reached a new level of stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:33:49 2013 No.6260663 >>6260173 dude what

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 18:49:19 2013 No.6260700 >>6260657 >>6260663 >ad hominem >no response

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:10:19 2013 No.6260750 >>6259993 actually it only gurantees one of those. Gödels theorem states that any sufficient strong theory can't be both complete and consistent. So we're pretty much looking for a consistent non-complete theory, which many believe is what we got.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 19:15:19 2013 No.6260761 If guys want to see a short proof of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WylL1m4K6Bk

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]