godel and a few thoughts

i Nicholas – I didn’t respond yet but I see you engaged with my new Italian friend. I debated with him somewhat (which is how we became friends) but then agreed with him when I realized that this is his grand theory and there’s only so far I can go. I found him through a couple of mathematical friends (one’s lucky enough to have been a *professional mathematician” for the past 30 years; imagine being able to pursue your interest like that!)

Anyway with them, they hit their mystical when it comes to TOE- with Max Tegmark and are happy there, so outside of some debates here and there where I argue linguistics, context, history, etc, I generally let it be. In my POV, it’s their mystical and they’ve found it.

and thanks Yes, I’m a fan of Godel’s incompleteness theorems – at least the ones that pertain to what I’ve been looking into.. It’s a grand answer to the “the “if and only if” problem or “necessary and sufficient” problem; all variations on a similar theme:

My take on it:
The very nature of if and only if, or the need for the axiom itself, or the rules of deduction and inference alike (top-down/bottom-up) … the problem lies therein.

[and of course I’m not falsifying mathematics or anything but I think you know me by now to know I don’t mean anything so basic ]

Rather I see it as a map/territory issue. A map created of the Universe by whatever means, is not drawn to scale and is contained within the very Universe it is describing.

Holographic concepts take care of that one, allowing for nearly infinite regress yet it would also need to take into account the patterns of choice of those who created the very holographic concepts themselves, as well as all of its mistakes, problems, lies, errors, and sentences-not-uttered, the thoughts of beetles, the dreams of dogs and the like to the ends of Time back to the beginning, all religious thought, and flights of fancy and each process within and be able to see it from any perspective in the Universe, including those we never could know, such as the moment after humanity no longer exists to confirm its validity.

So… a tall order I take a pragmatic view of mathematical truths; they work, so use them.

But I’d go just shy of saying absolute truth. True for us, useful for us, descriptive for us and possibly useful for others as well. It works even when we’re not looking.

I’ll have to respond to your stuff on the comments in public as well; looks like you two had an interesting little back-and-forth – thanks!
Chat Conversation End

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 + = thirteen

Leave a Reply