Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleQuetzalcohuatl
Stranger

Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 646
Re: Godeliean proof that science will always be incomplete - a Dialogue [Re: xFrockx]
    #10380159 - 05/22/09 04:33 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

If you start from a sufficient number of complex axioms/assumptions, then the system will either be complete or consistent. If it's suffiently complex and consistent it can't be complete. If it is not consistent it is fundamentally flawed. So some statements which are true can not be reached by the axioms if the axioms are consistent. But the statement is true.

Science isn't the same thing as an axiomatic system of logic like Peano arithmetic; but the proofs show that there are things a computer can not solve, and there are other similar proofs that show there are limitations to what a computer can do. But there is no proof that human mind = computer.

Hume is much better at kicking Science's ass.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Godeliean proof that science will always be incomplete - a Dialogue [Re: xFrockx]
    #10380520 - 05/22/09 06:42 AM (14 years, 9 months ago)

It's funny that actually, the more we try to "go deep" and brew some kind of TOE, the less these theories become predictive in scope.

Take the standard model for example. It's only good at computing scattering cross sections between subatomic particles, and requires enormous amount of processing power and human sweating to get anything out of it.

Trying to make a model and predict a small atomic nucleus starting only from the standard model ? Good luck, you would need a computer the size of a small nation and an army of graduate students.

A model of every human interactions ? You would need a Laplace's demon as big as the solar system, and even there.
the l
Every time we try to predict something we have to embed, to virtualize a small part of the world into a bigger part of the world, for example a computer or a human brain. The only perfect simulation, the simulation which requires no more no less than what the movement one simulates, is the world itself.

A theory of everything won't be any good at predicting anything, only at telling you what is within the bounds of possibilities. These possibilities are spoken in terms of symmetries.

So as of today we are pretty confident that anything is possible within the bounds of a local SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) symmetry and a global translation X SO(3,1) symmetry, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, it is in that sense that those who speculate about theories of everything following creative impulses brought about by reading New Scientist and their sensationalistic covers telling of strings and loops, those are doing so without understanding what these TOE really entails.

I'm all for silencing these speculations, but these speculation are not what's going on in research. Let the quantum mystical magical guru have wet dreams of Laplace's demons, but also let the scientist do what he likes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: Godeliean proof that science will always be incomplete - a Dialogue [Re: Quetzalcohuatl]
    #10381703 - 05/22/09 12:06 PM (14 years, 9 months ago)

Actually to add on to what I was saying earlier: it does seem self-evident that the choice does exist for us (free will rearing its ugly illusory head) so accepting that premise must lead us to reject the premise of absolute determinism.  OK, I'll agree with you that a completely predictive theory is impossible so long as we accept our own autonomy; also this seems to mesh well with the apparent probabilistic nature of our universe at the micro-scale.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Burden of Proof
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Sclorch 7,906 81 01/16/03 05:22 PM
by Sclorch
* On Jewish Science, & Gentile Holocaust luciferhorus 1,221 8 05/20/05 08:09 PM
by Huehuecoyotl
* Traps and pitfalls of logic and science.
( 1 2 all )
gribochek 4,429 28 04/23/02 10:06 PM
by infidelGOD
* Prediction Theory Zero7a1 1,185 13 05/08/03 10:02 PM
by Zero7a1
* The Religion of Today: SCIENCE.
( 1 2 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 2,935 27 08/31/04 10:56 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Science the ultimate tool?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Icelander 6,399 94 08/05/05 12:13 PM
by EquilibriuM
* Proof That God Does Not Exist
( 1 2 all )
yewhew 4,241 37 02/21/04 03:34 AM
by raytrace
* Scientific Proof of God daimyo 2,702 18 03/11/06 04:01 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,681 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.