|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
a variation on Gödel 2
#23384279 - 06/26/16 02:12 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place. Gödel proved this. So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
|
I know it's a little off topic, but I just wanted to express my admiration for a mind that can take it this deeply.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I do appreciate that, Jsb.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
|
It's turtles all the way down You could easily replace any of those identifiers (determinist, etc) with its opposite.
--------------------
full blown human
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I do appreciate that, Jsb. 
Thanks man. I really appreciate how differently our minds work.
NOW IF ONLY THIS FUCKING WORLD COULD FIGURE OUT HOW WE MIGHT WORK IN COOPERATION, RATHER THAN IN OPPOSITION OF THIS FACT, MAYBE WE'LL FUCKING GET SOMEWHERE!!!
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place. Gödel proved this. So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?
My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DisoRDeR]
#23388138 - 06/27/16 03:57 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DisoRDeR said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place. Gödel proved this. So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?
My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.
Yes - you are right. A system* can never be both consistent and complete. That means it cannot prove itself to be true. It also means that there are certain statements which can neither be proven or disproven within the system - which speaks more to your point.
*we could probably debate the terms of "system," but in Godels instance, it denotes one which contains mathematical relations
--------------------
full blown human
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DisoRDeR] 1
#23388513 - 06/27/16 05:54 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DisoRDeR said:
My understanding of Gödel's incompleteness is shaky, but perhaps it is more appropriate to say that they may be right, but cannot prove it.
Yes, that is a more rigorous way to put it. The point is that within someone's own mind, if there is no efficaciousness of consciousness, or if consciousness doesn't have a deeper role than most causal determinists assert, then we're just running in circles, and our determinations are for practical purposes invalid -- or at least never subject to revision or confirmation according to classical physics. Incidentally, most people, and even most scientists, are still running around with Cartesian-Newtonianism in their heads when this has been proven to be incorrect. A deeper role for consciousness is explicitly formulated in the orthodox (von Neumann) permutations of quantum mechanics. Well, and in others.
Tl;dr this is not a billiard-ball universe.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
|
I don't see how what you're saying invalidates causal determinism.
--------------------
full blown human
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place. Gödel proved this. So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?
Because we know that we evolved both in mind and body. Our ancestors were not us.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: A system cannot be evaluated as a whole by a part of itself -- it must be evaluated by some system outside of itself if a consistent evaluation is to take place. Gödel proved this. So how can someone -- say a dyed-in-the-wool materialist -- call himself a deterministic, epiphenomenal robot in any consistent axiomatic framework and be right?
Godel did not prove that. You are talking a theorem of mathematics and bastardizing it to a scope that doesn't apply. Disorder does a good job pointing out part of the flaw.
Godel showed that in a sufficiently complex axiomatic system there will be theorems that are true but cannot be proven to be true. This does nothing to undermine science since all theories in science are already taken to be tentative with respect to evidence and thus inherently un-provable. Of course I see that you didn't bring up science, you talk about a materialist. I admit I cannot, and I've tried, understand what philosophers mean by that term. But I think they often use it interchangeably with scientists in a pejorative way.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: a variation on Gödel [Re: DieCommie]
#23388912 - 06/27/16 07:55 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Points taken. It was not my intent to undermine modern science.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|