Re: (OT) Re: Godel

hendrik_at_pooq.com
Date: 01/08/04

  • Next message: Kent West: "Re: Installation: input device lock on first graphic screen" 
    Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:38:00 -0500
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

    On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 01:25:09AM -0800, Tom wrote:
    > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:11:39AM +0100, Nicos Gollan wrote:
    > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:00:05 -0800
    > > Tom <tb.31123.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Once somebody disproves Godel I will rest easy...
    > >
    > > The one(s) doing this wouldn't survive the lynching parties the
    > > theoreticians would start, and AFAIK, the Goedel stuff is rather well
    > > proven. So don't hold your breath.
    > >
    >
    > Good. I was hoping someone smart would speak up. (I was a lousy
    > mathematician which is why I switched to computers. Much easier.)
    >
    > I accept Godel. Does it matter much in day to day life? Or is it just
    > something not to worry about.

    It's something not to worry about, unless your day-to-day life involves
    proving a lot of theorems, especially using computers to perform the
    proof steps absolutely rigorously, and furthermore you want to prove
    that the rules of proof are correct, and complete, and consistent,
    and so on and on and on...

    >
    > I mean, life goes on, but if Godel is true, I kind of just keep waiting
    > for the train to derail (and it usually does). Is it an important
    > result? How does one sleep at night :-) ?

    Trains aren't formal deductive systems, even thought they have schedules,
    they do or don;t run o time, and Godel's theorem has othing much to say
    about them.

    >
    > This is just one of those little things that I worry about...
    >

    In real life truth is much less absolute. It's determined by trial an error,
    and that's how science works. People who are sufficiently obsessive-compulsive
    about Truth end up retreating in mathematics where truth can be absolutely
    controlled -- after all, you decide on the axioms and rules of deduction, hey?
    BUT, what they lose when they crawl into the hole of formalist mathemetics (I've been there):
            Does their mathematics have anything to so with the real world?
            Are their rules true in any sensible sense, or do they define
                    their own truth independent of any external purpose?
    The first wuestion can not be answered withing their system -- it
    requires reference to the real world.

    The second question is addressed by Godel's theorem, which says, in
    essence, that if their rules are such that all their deductions yield
    truth (whatever that is), then their rules are not complete.

    So there's always something more to discover, and no set of rules is
    enough to decide what is dicoverable.

    And another issue that mathematicians tend to sweep under the rug. If
    you look at the history of mathematics, you sill find that
    the rules of deduction, the axioms that they start with, the socially
    accepted norms of presenting mathematical results, have themselves been
    determined by trial and error through the ages.
    It's just astonishing that the mathematics that has eveolved is as powerful
    as it turns out to be, and apparently also consistent.

    Even now there are
    controversies. There is a whole school of thought (constructivism)
    that rejects proof by contradiction. There are other mathematicians
    that reject the axiom of choice altogether, and instead treat Solovay's
    conjecture as an axiom: that all real-calued functions on the reals are
    measurable. That's inconsistent with the axion of choice, but if you're
    doing analysus, it's a lot more useful tnan the axiom of choice.

    Yes, there's no set of rules to decide what is discoverable, what is true.
    There's only a sense of what convinces people and what is useful.

    It has nothing to do with trains derailing, though, as far as I know.

    -- hendrik

    > --
    > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
    > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    > 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Kent West: "Re: Installation: input device lock on first graphic screen"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: I dont like the Axiom of Choice
      ... And this is what the Axiom of Choice is doing - making claims without ... Throughout most of my mathematics education, ... truth, or just accepted to be truth as a foundation point. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Godels proof, truth, reality, self-awareness, and all that jazz
      ... But not in physics. ... He achieved much but not the absolute truth. ... mathematics is that one ... (like the axiom of infinity). ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Godels theorem is meaningless
      ... Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory ... claim to rigour for the semantic version because the notion of truth ... Do you think that all of mathematics is meaningless, ... take russells paradox zermelo added the axiom schema of separation ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Relative Cardinality
      ... >> Randy Poe wrote: ... the axiom you are thinking of says that if a and b are ... > must be some method available to determine that truth. ... >> The axioms are valid in mathematics. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Godels incompleteness theorm proven wrong
      ... either lead to paradox or end in paradox. ... axiom of reducibility but this axiom was rejected as being invalid by ... Thus just on this point Godel is invalid as by using an axiom most people ... Godel proved that mathematics was inconsistent ...
      (sci.math)